It is written using Microsoft tools, and won't work if you have the Sun VM activated for your browser.
You can have more than one VM installed on the same Windows box. If some companies require the MS VM, they can just make the MS VM the default VM on their computers.
The ruling says that the Sun JRE has to be installed, but it doesn't say that it has to be used.
First it takes lots and lots of time for the applet to load.
With version 1.4, the Sun JRE supports applet caching. It caches classes, jars, and all associated sound and image files. For Java sites that you visit regularly (e.g., chat sites), Java starts up in a flash! The difference in the Java experience is stunning. It makes you feel like you have cable when you're on 56k. Too bad it's much too late to salvage Java's image in the minds of most end users.
I assume that you are Jewish yourself? We ("US fundamentalist Christians") remember that ADONAI said to Avram, "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." We believe that that last phrase was primarily fulfilled through Yeshua Ha Mashiach (aka Jesus Christ), but the Jewish people have blessed the peoples of the earth in many other ways, too. Their contributions to everything from ethics (through the Bible), medicine, science, the arts, and more is staggering for such a small minority.
May shalom be upon Israel.
Re:Whats special about israelis being in space?
on
First Israeli in Space
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Yeah, Palestinians are just standing around minding their own business in a night club or pizzaria in Israel, and they blow up! It's the Jeeews' fault!
Palestinians would have more "luck" living day to day lives if they didn't strap explosives onto themselves. Just a thought.
Oh, and climbing onto tanks while throwing rocks is also not a smart idea for staying alive. Are they trying to win Darwin Awards or what?
You might say that they're just desperate, but all they're doing is stirring up the hornets' nest. Blowing up Jewish babies in strollers doesn't earn them any liberty. The Palestinians' behavior is as counter-productive toward their own desires as it could possibly be.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Arabs come from Arabia, and Jews come from Judah (Israel).
There are already 21 Arab states in the world. Israel just wants their little strip of rocky, desolate, oil-barren land the size of New Jersey. Without Israel, the dispersed Jewry has no land on which to make its homeland. Now, which side is greedy for more land?
There are over 1 million Arabs ("Palestinians") who are Israeli citizens. They live, work, and vote as anybody else. They have more freedom in Israel than they would have in any Islamic country in the world.
Jews have a great deal of tolerance and sympathy for Palestinians. But they also happen to believe in the Torah: "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6)
the same book that has adam create eve from a rib bone [1], noah puts 2 of every single creature on the earth onto the ark [2], all whilst moses waves his arms and parts the ocean [3]?
Man created life? That's news to me. Noah put every creature on the ark? That is NOT even CLOSE to what it says. Moses waved his arms and parted the ocean? Ahh, I don't think it was the wind from his arm motions. (It was not the ocean either.) You've taken God out of the picture in all three instances.
If you're going to disagree with something, it might help to know what it is you're disagreeing with.
As I understand it (and I haven't really studied it so I could be wrong), this was mostly an unintentional consequence of the huge influx of American immigrants. Quite simply, the ratio of Americans to native Hawaiians was so huge, that it was just inevitable that it would become a U.S. state.
I'm curious. I'd like to ask an old Hawaiian: Are you better off now than you were 50 years ago? Hawaii has more and higher paying jobs, more technology, higher per capita, better roads, better transportation (airports, boats), better weather forecasting (important for such secluded islands), better seismography, and all the constitutional rights, freedoms, and privileges that go along with being a part of the free-est and most powerful nation on earth.
The US has also tried several times to turn Puerto Rico into a US state, absolutly no chance of it becoming an independent country.
I don't think Puerto Rico wants to become an indepedent country. You see, the U.S. is letting their citizens leech on itself. Puerto Ricans can get some of the benefits of U.S. citizenship (social security I think, among other things) without having to pay taxes. AFAIK, they have no incentive to become an independent country. Dependence is too comfy.
Ted Nugent likes to say, "You can't grill it until you kill it." Well, even if you don't kill it personally, now you can grill it just like the Nuge. In Kill It and Grill It, Ted Nugent shares his favorite recipes for such exotic fare as wild boar, pheasant, buffalo and venison.
The U.S. has not acquired any land since Hawaii was added as a state almost half a century ago, and that was just a few volcanic islands in the middle of nowhere.
Now, let's tackle the second part of the definition. There are two kinds of influence that the U.S. has on the world: intentional and unintentional. I propose that the "imperialistic" actions you perceive are mostly the result of unintentional influence.
The U.S. never set out to be World Cop. This is the key to understanding that the U.S. is not imperialistic. Newsflash: Big things influence little things. That's the natural order of things. Big stars radiate more light and heat (in general) than small stars. Big planets have more gravity than small planets. The effects are not "intended" to be good or bad. The U.S. is simply the 20-pound catfish in a fish tank of minnows and can't help but affect and influence almost everything that goes on. You throw a boulder in a pond and it causes ripples over the whole pond. The boulder isn't trying to take over the pond; it just has natural, benevolent (yet big and possibly harmful) effects on its environment.
But besides the fact that the U.S. can't suppress its natural influence, the world has essentially told it that it has a responsibility to influence and shape the world for good, because it is the only superpower left. The U.S. tries to do what's best, but whenever it talks about doing something, it's dammed if it does and it's damned if it doesn't. There's no way it can satisfy all the hundreds of countries in the world. It would go crazy if it tried. Just look at the U.N., a bureaucratic monster paralyzed because it has 191 members and as many different agendas.
It's natural for some of the minnows to be spiteful of the Big Fish. It's like the people who hate Microsoft (richest software co.), Red Hat (biggest Linux co.), AOL (biggest ISP), Bill Gates (richest man), Israel (most prosperous Middle East country), NY (most prestigious state), and Time Warner et al (biggest media co.). Some of this disdain is well-founded IMHO. But why not sit down and consider the GOOD effects that some of these entities have had and are having? The U.S. has failed and stumbled many times, but I believe that it has positively influenced the world more times and in greater ways than any of us will ever know.
I don't know. I was thinking that LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the Iraqi people might somehow be a greater gain than whatever anybody else might gain.
The issue is NOT: Harm innocent civilians or do not harm innocent civilians?
The issue is: Choose a small war now (when the democracies' odds are good, and we can wage it on our OWN terms) or join a HUGE war later (when the democracies' odds are poorer, and tyrants and terrorists dictate the terms).
The option of peace is an illusion. We live in a world of war. The best we can do is manage the war. It's a strategy game. You take out the madmen with WMD in small wars to prevent them from waging big wars.
We've already made the mistake once in 1991. We backed off of completing the job because we thought the costs were too high, even though we knew Saddam was amassing WMD. Now, 12 years later, the threat is much greater, and the costs also may be much greater. We dare not procrastinate any longer! Iraq is working the black market to get nukes from China, North Korea, or Russia. You think casualties are going to be high if we act now? If we continue to postpone, delay, "give {peace, inspections, diplomacy} a chance" (i.e., give Saddam a chance - to develop nuclear weapons), you ain't seen nothin' yet!
If it was wrong for the US to sit idle while the Nazi threat was growing, it is wrong to sit idle while Saddam's regime is growing. Saddam supports Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Heck, he is a terrorist! When you see a threat growing, you have to nip it in the bud. It is irresponsible for us to continue to procrastinate. The sooner we act, the better it will be for the whole world -- except for Saddam. He has been given many, many chances to ameliorate the situation, but he has chosen his fate.
The Iraqi civilians have more to benefit as a result of US/UK action than ANY OTHER party. We come not to conquer, but to liberate. Unfortunately, Saddam has put an evil face on his country. This war will be waged against his government, not the Iraqi civilians. Many innocent people will be killed, but the struggle to wrestle freedom from tyranny always results in bloodshed of the innocent. Freedom isn't free. Blood is the price of liberty.
Did you forget the big wings, breathes fire, coexisted with humans part?
Big wings... like a pterodactyl? Lots of animals have wings. Breathes fire? It is known that the bombardier beetle can produce a little explosion by mixing chemicals inside itself, so we do have an example of an animal producing and wielding fire. It's a lot different from a fire-breathing dragon, but given the diversity of life, living and extinct, it's not too big a stretch to believe. Coexisted with humans? Sure. Land animals and humans were created on the same day.
There's no way you could have a flying lion. Simple lift calculations prohibit it
I don't think we have sufficient details of the alleged griffin's physiology to determine that. Its ability to fly might not be unfeasible if you remove some of your presuppositions. For example, its bones could've been hollow like a bird's bones. Although it was supposedly "half" eagle, we don't for sure that the eagle and lion attributes couldn't have been intermingled. I must confess, I don't know anything about lift calculations, so it might be impossible any way you cut it.
In either case, it'd be nice to see just the least bit of hard evidence.
I agree. It would be much too speculative to affirmatively conclude their existence.
Why was he [Dr. George Shaw] a fool?
He was not a fool in his time, but someone holding onto his initial nonbelief in platypus today would be a fool. My point is that the skeptic's position often turns out to be wrong and that Skeptics (with a capital S) have no reason for their haughty, smarter-than-thou attitude.
After all, skepticism is relative. I am a skeptic of evolution. Evolutionists are skeptics of creationism. We're all skeptical of something.
The Skeptics have nothing on the rest of us skeptics.
It's the desire to one-up another's beliefs. Sometimes there is a personal or political agenda at stake in rewriting an historical event. Why do people ignore the evidence of the moon landing? Why do people ignore the evidence of the Christ's resurrection? Various reasons, but they all boil down to ignorance and/or pride.
This is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority." Just because someone smart, famous, or important believes or says something does not make it true or even worthwhile in considering.
Naturalists basically say "Spiritual people believe in their myths because they don't understand science." In other words: "Because most spiritual people are not scientists, they are ALL ignorant, stupid, backwards kooks." (Or something like that.) This is the fallacy of, you might say, "guilt by non-association" being used against theists. It is fallacious thinking, but that is the operating premise that nanojath and the rest of us have been given to work with.
Here's the main point: Since naturalists imply that they would have a more favorable opinion of theism if naturalists were aware of famous theist scientists (however fallacious this logic may be), it's in the interest of theists to give them the requested information. Naturalists laid the grounds for this point of discussion, so that's what we're going with.
Excuse me, but what is a dragon but a dinosaur? Might griffins and unicorns be extinct species? For all we know, there could've been pink unicorns long ago. Maybe the unicorn was a short-lived, ill-conceived breeding experiment between horses and other horned animals. We have fresh-water PINK dolphins in the Amazon today, which sounds to me like something straight out of a fantasy book, but they are real. I don't necessarily believe in unicorns and such, but it's good not to automatically assume the "safe, normal person" opinion. Just being the skeptic's skeptic.;-)
Consider the platypus for a moment. It's an animal with the bill and webbed feet of a duck, the tail of a beaver, and some features of reptiles. If the platypus became extinct today, I suspect that a few hundred years from now, skeptics would begin to deny its existence. The records wouldn't matter. We have skeptics and outright deniers of the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and the Reagan economic boom, all to which there are living witnesses today.
Look at what I found on the platypus:
According to Aboriginal legend, the first platypus were born after a young female duck mated with a lonely and persuasive water-rat. The duck's offspring had their mother's bill and webbed feet and their father's four legs and handsome brown fur.
In 1799, the platypus was first described by a British scientist, Dr George Shaw. His initial reaction to this original specimen was that it was an elaborate hoax. He even took a pair of scissors to the pelt, expecting to find stitches attaching the bill to the skin.
Aaagh Yes, you are right about the Crusades. I wasn't thinking straight. But there have been times where professing Christians attempted to convert by the threat of the sword.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Christians have reconciled their faith with evolution and accept evolution as the likely source of humanity. Most Christians are deeply embarrassed by the behavior of creationists.
In the 1100s, the vast majority of Christians in Europe had reconciled (or rather, compromised, corrupted, subverted) their faith with torturing and murdering and had accepted converting by the sword as the likely source of evangelism.
NOW, who is embarassed (to put it lightly) by whom? It's not right, plain and simple. It's another era of error. The faith is again being compromised, corrupted, and subverted. One day, Christians will look back on our acceptance of evolution with stinging sorrow, regret, and embarassment.
Btw, I disagree that a vast majority believe in evolution.
My point is that I noticed a severe lack of ability to persuade. Persuasion from a point of common ground is a vital skill for an advisor to have. Judging from the responses I read, the respondents appear to have given little thought as to how their recommendations would be received by Bush.
I thought that the members of the Edge were supposed to be really brilliant people. And maybe they are. But I realized that I had set my expectations for insight and profundity much too high. I was let down not just concerning the content of their messages, but the futile way in which they tossed their opinions out there supported by hasty, brash arguments, expecting the President to lap them up or rubber stamp them. Not too bright.
Again, I must say that I only read a few in their entirety. Maybe the other responses are in fact deeply profound and masterfully presented and argued. Given the ones I did read, I guessed that the rest wouldn't be worth my time.
I read most of the summaries and a few of the responses in full. With all due respect, the typical high school newspaper editorial is more insightful than these. Some of these wouldn't make it beyond +3 here on Slashdot. A lot of it is pretty common knowledge and well-known issues. Some of things they say are downright foolish, and I don't say that just because they're politically at odds with myself or GWB.
One person mistakes the position of Science Advisor for Science Crusader and embarks to convert Bush to Evolutionism. In TWO paragraphs! Surely he knows that Bush is a devout Christian. He might as well be lobbying for bin Laden to be put in charge of Homeland Security on the basis that he's really a freedom fighter.
Another person tries to persuade Bush that animals should be considered to have rights as humans and that we should respect the diverse cultures of all animal/human civilizations. Nnngh? Bush is supposed to accept this on the basis of Darwinism. Umm, hellooo?? We're talking Bible-thumping Bush here. That line of argument is gonna fly like a dodo bird. In effect, the guy goes on to wield Occam's Razor against any notions of the Creator. His letter is going in the circular file faster than you can say W.
I don't think these [Over the] Edge people were playing along with the given scenario as they would've if it were real. Knowing who Bush is and what he stands for, it just doesn't seem very bright to even attempt some of the arguments they're making. Besides, you don't make a good first impression with your boss by attacking his most fundamental beliefs in your first correspondence before you even meet him.
I agree that accuracy was probably not the point, but I think the reason for the program is not nearly as altruistic as you propose.
The major objective is, of course, just to be as entertaining and sensational as possible. Next step: Profit!
But beyond that, I can't help thinking that the ulterior motive is to advance people's belief in Evolutionism. It insinuatingly purports that we can be so confident in the truth of evolution up to now that we can be so bold as to imagine the effects of ongoing and future evolution and believe that real effects will take place.
Let's be frank: Widespread belief in evolution is due to its pop culture status. In this day and age, it's fashionable to believe in evolution. Jurassic Park. Barney the purple dinosaur. Dinosaurs and evolution are chic. (I don't believe evolution to be a precondition for dinosaurs (or anything), but the two are tightly intertwined in the popular mind.) That's why the show was aired.
At best, the show is just capitalism hitching a ride on the evolutionist pop culture science-fiction/fantasy hype. At worst, it's propaganda to further a sociological agenda, which is IMO, one that is destructive to the fundamental values and institutions which have enabled and sustained prosperous, orderly, and enviable civilizations.
Slashdot Mirror
You can have more than one VM installed on the same Windows box. If some companies require the MS VM, they can just make the MS VM the default VM on their computers.
The ruling says that the Sun JRE has to be installed, but it doesn't say that it has to be used.
With version 1.4, the Sun JRE supports applet caching. It caches classes, jars, and all associated sound and image files. For Java sites that you visit regularly (e.g., chat sites), Java starts up in a flash! The difference in the Java experience is stunning. It makes you feel like you have cable when you're on 56k. Too bad it's much too late to salvage Java's image in the minds of most end users.
Thanks for your kind words. I put you on my Friends list.
I assume that you are Jewish yourself? We ("US fundamentalist Christians") remember that ADONAI said to Avram, "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." We believe that that last phrase was primarily fulfilled through Yeshua Ha Mashiach (aka Jesus Christ), but the Jewish people have blessed the peoples of the earth in many other ways, too. Their contributions to everything from ethics (through the Bible), medicine, science, the arts, and more is staggering for such a small minority.
May shalom be upon Israel.
Palestinians would have more "luck" living day to day lives if they didn't strap explosives onto themselves. Just a thought.
Oh, and climbing onto tanks while throwing rocks is also not a smart idea for staying alive. Are they trying to win Darwin Awards or what?
You might say that they're just desperate, but all they're doing is stirring up the hornets' nest. Blowing up Jewish babies in strollers doesn't earn them any liberty. The Palestinians' behavior is as counter-productive toward their own desires as it could possibly be.
There are already 21 Arab states in the world. Israel just wants their little strip of rocky, desolate, oil-barren land the size of New Jersey. Without Israel, the dispersed Jewry has no land on which to make its homeland. Now, which side is greedy for more land?
There are over 1 million Arabs ("Palestinians") who are Israeli citizens. They live, work, and vote as anybody else. They have more freedom in Israel than they would have in any Islamic country in the world.
Jews have a great deal of tolerance and sympathy for Palestinians. But they also happen to believe in the Torah: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6)
Man created life? That's news to me. Noah put every creature on the ark? That is NOT even CLOSE to what it says. Moses waved his arms and parted the ocean? Ahh, I don't think it was the wind from his arm motions. (It was not the ocean either.) You've taken God out of the picture in all three instances.
If you're going to disagree with something, it might help to know what it is you're disagreeing with.
RTFM
It was rated +5 Insightful when I saw it. Most people seemed to be taking it seriously.
As I understand it (and I haven't really studied it so I could be wrong), this was mostly an unintentional consequence of the huge influx of American immigrants. Quite simply, the ratio of Americans to native Hawaiians was so huge, that it was just inevitable that it would become a U.S. state.
I'm curious. I'd like to ask an old Hawaiian: Are you better off now than you were 50 years ago? Hawaii has more and higher paying jobs, more technology, higher per capita, better roads, better transportation (airports, boats), better weather forecasting (important for such secluded islands), better seismography, and all the constitutional rights, freedoms, and privileges that go along with being a part of the free-est and most powerful nation on earth.
The US has also tried several times to turn Puerto Rico into a US state, absolutly no chance of it becoming an independent country.
I don't think Puerto Rico wants to become an indepedent country. You see, the U.S. is letting their citizens leech on itself. Puerto Ricans can get some of the benefits of U.S. citizenship (social security I think, among other things) without having to pay taxes. AFAIK, they have no incentive to become an independent country. Dependence is too comfy.
Woah there, cowboy! The earth has only been around 6000 years. Guess lower.
Try 4.0e0 years
according to Science 275(5308):1880, 1997.
Don't forget to buy a tin foil beanie hat.
The U.S. has not acquired any land since Hawaii was added as a state almost half a century ago, and that was just a few volcanic islands in the middle of nowhere.
Now, let's tackle the second part of the definition. There are two kinds of influence that the U.S. has on the world: intentional and unintentional. I propose that the "imperialistic" actions you perceive are mostly the result of unintentional influence.
The U.S. never set out to be World Cop. This is the key to understanding that the U.S. is not imperialistic. Newsflash: Big things influence little things. That's the natural order of things. Big stars radiate more light and heat (in general) than small stars. Big planets have more gravity than small planets. The effects are not "intended" to be good or bad. The U.S. is simply the 20-pound catfish in a fish tank of minnows and can't help but affect and influence almost everything that goes on. You throw a boulder in a pond and it causes ripples over the whole pond. The boulder isn't trying to take over the pond; it just has natural, benevolent (yet big and possibly harmful) effects on its environment.
But besides the fact that the U.S. can't suppress its natural influence, the world has essentially told it that it has a responsibility to influence and shape the world for good, because it is the only superpower left. The U.S. tries to do what's best, but whenever it talks about doing something, it's dammed if it does and it's damned if it doesn't. There's no way it can satisfy all the hundreds of countries in the world. It would go crazy if it tried. Just look at the U.N., a bureaucratic monster paralyzed because it has 191 members and as many different agendas.
It's natural for some of the minnows to be spiteful of the Big Fish. It's like the people who hate Microsoft (richest software co.), Red Hat (biggest Linux co.), AOL (biggest ISP), Bill Gates (richest man), Israel (most prosperous Middle East country), NY (most prestigious state), and Time Warner et al (biggest media co.). Some of this disdain is well-founded IMHO. But why not sit down and consider the GOOD effects that some of these entities have had and are having? The U.S. has failed and stumbled many times, but I believe that it has positively influenced the world more times and in greater ways than any of us will ever know.
I don't know. I was thinking that LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the Iraqi people might somehow be a greater gain than whatever anybody else might gain.
The issue is: Choose a small war now (when the democracies' odds are good, and we can wage it on our OWN terms) or join a HUGE war later (when the democracies' odds are poorer, and tyrants and terrorists dictate the terms).
The option of peace is an illusion. We live in a world of war. The best we can do is manage the war. It's a strategy game. You take out the madmen with WMD in small wars to prevent them from waging big wars.
We've already made the mistake once in 1991. We backed off of completing the job because we thought the costs were too high, even though we knew Saddam was amassing WMD. Now, 12 years later, the threat is much greater, and the costs also may be much greater. We dare not procrastinate any longer! Iraq is working the black market to get nukes from China, North Korea, or Russia. You think casualties are going to be high if we act now? If we continue to postpone, delay, "give {peace, inspections, diplomacy} a chance" (i.e., give Saddam a chance - to develop nuclear weapons), you ain't seen nothin' yet!
If it was wrong for the US to sit idle while the Nazi threat was growing, it is wrong to sit idle while Saddam's regime is growing. Saddam supports Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Heck, he is a terrorist! When you see a threat growing, you have to nip it in the bud. It is irresponsible for us to continue to procrastinate. The sooner we act, the better it will be for the whole world -- except for Saddam. He has been given many, many chances to ameliorate the situation, but he has chosen his fate.
The Iraqi civilians have more to benefit as a result of US/UK action than ANY OTHER party. We come not to conquer, but to liberate. Unfortunately, Saddam has put an evil face on his country. This war will be waged against his government, not the Iraqi civilians. Many innocent people will be killed, but the struggle to wrestle freedom from tyranny always results in bloodshed of the innocent. Freedom isn't free. Blood is the price of liberty.
Big wings... like a pterodactyl? Lots of animals have wings. Breathes fire? It is known that the bombardier beetle can produce a little explosion by mixing chemicals inside itself, so we do have an example of an animal producing and wielding fire. It's a lot different from a fire-breathing dragon, but given the diversity of life, living and extinct, it's not too big a stretch to believe. Coexisted with humans? Sure. Land animals and humans were created on the same day.
There's no way you could have a flying lion. Simple lift calculations prohibit it
I don't think we have sufficient details of the alleged griffin's physiology to determine that. Its ability to fly might not be unfeasible if you remove some of your presuppositions. For example, its bones could've been hollow like a bird's bones. Although it was supposedly "half" eagle, we don't for sure that the eagle and lion attributes couldn't have been intermingled. I must confess, I don't know anything about lift calculations, so it might be impossible any way you cut it.
In either case, it'd be nice to see just the least bit of hard evidence.
I agree. It would be much too speculative to affirmatively conclude their existence.
Why was he [Dr. George Shaw] a fool?
He was not a fool in his time, but someone holding onto his initial nonbelief in platypus today would be a fool. My point is that the skeptic's position often turns out to be wrong and that Skeptics (with a capital S) have no reason for their haughty, smarter-than-thou attitude.
After all, skepticism is relative. I am a skeptic of evolution. Evolutionists are skeptics of creationism. We're all skeptical of something.
The Skeptics have nothing on the rest of us skeptics.
It's the desire to one-up another's beliefs. Sometimes there is a personal or political agenda at stake in rewriting an historical event. Why do people ignore the evidence of the moon landing? Why do people ignore the evidence of the Christ's resurrection? Various reasons, but they all boil down to ignorance and/or pride.
Naturalists basically say "Spiritual people believe in their myths because they don't understand science." In other words: "Because most spiritual people are not scientists, they are ALL ignorant, stupid, backwards kooks." (Or something like that.) This is the fallacy of, you might say, "guilt by non-association" being used against theists. It is fallacious thinking, but that is the operating premise that nanojath and the rest of us have been given to work with.
Here's the main point: Since naturalists imply that they would have a more favorable opinion of theism if naturalists were aware of famous theist scientists (however fallacious this logic may be), it's in the interest of theists to give them the requested information. Naturalists laid the grounds for this point of discussion, so that's what we're going with.
Consider the platypus for a moment. It's an animal with the bill and webbed feet of a duck, the tail of a beaver, and some features of reptiles. If the platypus became extinct today, I suspect that a few hundred years from now, skeptics would begin to deny its existence. The records wouldn't matter. We have skeptics and outright deniers of the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and the Reagan economic boom, all to which there are living witnesses today.
Look at what I found on the platypus:
Today's skeptics may well be tomorrow's fools.Aaagh Yes, you are right about the Crusades. I wasn't thinking straight. But there have been times where professing Christians attempted to convert by the threat of the sword.
Or monkeys with dartboards. One dart for the lower limit and another dart for the upper limit.
Bible Contradictions
Nauseating, for sure.
All the ANSWERS are here. (Genesis FAQ)
In the 1100s, the vast majority of Christians in Europe had reconciled (or rather, compromised, corrupted, subverted) their faith with torturing and murdering and had accepted converting by the sword as the likely source of evangelism.
NOW, who is embarassed (to put it lightly) by whom? It's not right, plain and simple. It's another era of error. The faith is again being compromised, corrupted, and subverted. One day, Christians will look back on our acceptance of evolution with stinging sorrow, regret, and embarassment.
Btw, I disagree that a vast majority believe in evolution.
I thought that the members of the Edge were supposed to be really brilliant people. And maybe they are. But I realized that I had set my expectations for insight and profundity much too high. I was let down not just concerning the content of their messages, but the futile way in which they tossed their opinions out there supported by hasty, brash arguments, expecting the President to lap them up or rubber stamp them. Not too bright.
Again, I must say that I only read a few in their entirety. Maybe the other responses are in fact deeply profound and masterfully presented and argued. Given the ones I did read, I guessed that the rest wouldn't be worth my time.
One person mistakes the position of Science Advisor for Science Crusader and embarks to convert Bush to Evolutionism. In TWO paragraphs! Surely he knows that Bush is a devout Christian. He might as well be lobbying for bin Laden to be put in charge of Homeland Security on the basis that he's really a freedom fighter.
Another person tries to persuade Bush that animals should be considered to have rights as humans and that we should respect the diverse cultures of all animal/human civilizations. Nnngh? Bush is supposed to accept this on the basis of Darwinism. Umm, hellooo?? We're talking Bible-thumping Bush here. That line of argument is gonna fly like a dodo bird. In effect, the guy goes on to wield Occam's Razor against any notions of the Creator. His letter is going in the circular file faster than you can say W.
I don't think these [Over the] Edge people were playing along with the given scenario as they would've if it were real. Knowing who Bush is and what he stands for, it just doesn't seem very bright to even attempt some of the arguments they're making. Besides, you don't make a good first impression with your boss by attacking his most fundamental beliefs in your first correspondence before you even meet him.
The major objective is, of course, just to be as entertaining and sensational as possible. Next step: Profit!
But beyond that, I can't help thinking that the ulterior motive is to advance people's belief in Evolutionism. It insinuatingly purports that we can be so confident in the truth of evolution up to now that we can be so bold as to imagine the effects of ongoing and future evolution and believe that real effects will take place.
Let's be frank: Widespread belief in evolution is due to its pop culture status. In this day and age, it's fashionable to believe in evolution. Jurassic Park. Barney the purple dinosaur. Dinosaurs and evolution are chic. (I don't believe evolution to be a precondition for dinosaurs (or anything), but the two are tightly intertwined in the popular mind.) That's why the show was aired.
At best, the show is just capitalism hitching a ride on the evolutionist pop culture science-fiction/fantasy hype. At worst, it's propaganda to further a sociological agenda, which is IMO, one that is destructive to the fundamental values and institutions which have enabled and sustained prosperous, orderly, and enviable civilizations.