I am saying that the Bible does not say one way or the other whether or not God created other people besides Adam and Eve. However, if one interprets things from the perspective of thinking that the Biblical account is true the following logic applies even if God only created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created with perfect genetics (no bad genes at all, recessive or otherwise). Once they sinned, imperfection and entropy were introduced. Every time their genes were replicated after this, there were imperfections in the copying as a result of sin (I will repeat here, this is the logic of the Biblical account informed by modern genetics). There was no reason why incest was a problem for the children of Adam and Eve because there were not yet any common recessive genes between any two of them. Adam and Eve's genes were perfect, all imperfections happened when those genes replicated to produce ova or sperm. Each of their children who had bad genes would have had different bad genes. It is only after multiple generations when enough bad genes had accumulated that there would be significant risk from having children with a sibling that the prohibition against incest was introduced.
Whether you believe it or not, the point is that your argument does not demonstrate that God's plan was half-assed.
The thing is, the Bible says that the most recent common male ancestor (Noah) was significantly closer in time than the most recent common female ancestor (Eve). So, the Biblical account, also, says that the most recent common male ancestor was not the husband/mate of the most recent common female ancestor.
Actually, the Bible does not say that Cain married his sister. It does not say who her parents were at all. All it says is that after Cain killed Abel he went to the Land of Nod, then it says that he made love to his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth (which is the first and only mention of her in the Bible). The Genesis story does not rule out the possibility that God created other humans besides Adam and Eve at some point after creating Adam and Eve.
The thing is, I know a lot of people who oppose embryonic stem cell research on religious/moral grounds. I, also, know a lot of conservative Republicans. Not only do none of either of those groups that I know hold the belief that all stem cell research is evil, but all of those I know are unaware of any in either group who do so. Therefore, while it may be that this one preacher you know (and perhaps his congregation) believe that, it is not a "large group of extremist conservative republicans", it is, at most, a small group.
The point is, the circles I walk in include a lot of conservative republicans, and an even larger group of conservative Christians, yet it contains none who believe that all stem cell research is evil, and none who are aware of anyone who believes that all stem cell research is evil.
No, most theologians that believe in the Big Bang believe that it had a cause. That cause being the Creator. Further, Constantine was not a theologian, he was an Emperor.
Well, that is unusual, because as I said, I know quite a few people who oppose embryonic stem cell research, yet I do not know anyone who opposes adult stem cell research.
If so, would you care to name/reference a few of these people? I hear people make claims like that all the time, yet I rarely, if ever, hear the basis for their claim.
But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.
Really, have you ever met any? I do not know of any.
It would not surprise me to learn that, because of the way the press reports on all stem cell research, there are a few who are unaware that there are any stem cells that are not derived from embryos (or, if they are aware are under the impression that our knowledge of them derives from embryonic stem cell research*). However, I doubt there are any that would be opposed to adult stem cell research once it was clearly explained to them.
*Considering how many posters on here have indicated a belief that this treatment probably derives from embryonic stem cell research that does not indicate any particular ignorance on their part.
There are two things I would like to point out. The first is that whenever I point out that all current approved treatments using stem cells use adult stem cells and none use embryonic stem cells someone points out that adult stem cells have been studied significantly longer than embryonic stem cells.
The second point is that the treatment that he received is an experimental treatment, not quackery. It may become quackery in a few years if the doctors continue administering after the studies are run, if the studies fail to prove its efficacy and safety. This is a treatment that current medical theory says has significant promise, but it has not yet undergone sufficient testing to determine if it works as currently administered. It may turn out that the theory is flawed, or that the procedure does not work as currently administered.
First, the change in the funding structure was a result of a court ruling, so it really isn't fair to lay that at the door of Rick Perry. Second, none of the links I could find about how much Texas gave me the numbers in actual dollars budgeted. So, how much was budgeted last year (or whatever year you feel was before Rick Perry started slashing education spending) vs how much was budgeted this year? Actual dollars please, not "percent cut" or "dollars cut" because those two are almost always from projected increases, not from actual spending.
You should be aware that just because school administrators choose to cut teachers doesn't mean that they couldn't have gotten the same savings by cutting administrative staff.
Really? I see a few problems with your accusation. First, hiring and firing of teachers is a local decision, not something decided by the state. Second, I find it hard to believe that the amount of actual dollars spent has decreased in any budget on a year to year basis. I am unaware of any time, when in the discussion of government spending, "cutting spending" actually meant cutting spending. On every occassion I am aware of when they report that government spending was cut, what they really mean is that the government is not going to spend as much more than last year as the people who passed last year's budget said they would. Finally, according to reports I have seen, the number of public school administrators in Texas has increased by 36% since 1999 while public school enrollment has increased by 20%.
Sure it does. As those countries become countries that function by the rule of law, they become richer and more likely to be costumers for our companies. A significant factor in the decline of the U.S. is the fact that it has been steadily moving away from the rule of law and more and more to a rule by edict.
You know what long term helps people in countries like India, China, and other currently very poor countries? Giving them jobs that pay significantly more than the current prevailing wage. The best way to address most of the problems in Third World countries is to increase their incomes. When you look into it you discover that the factories that make products for American companies pay significantly more than other jobs that are available in those countries, and they generally have better working conditions (although that second part is more sporadic than the first part).
Several studies have shown that the two largest factors in improving circumstances in Third World countries are closely related. One, is the implementation of rule of law, which is where the laws are easily understood by everyone, apply the same to everyone and do not change arbitrarily. Two, is where it is relatively clear who owns a peice of land and relatively easy to transfer ownership from one party to another.
I know consumers that can keep a PC going strong for 4 - 6 years without issue,...
That is not that hard, I kept a cheap Dell going with no issues for ten years. I only took it out of service because it was slow enough as to not be worth using anymore once I could afford to replace it.
So, there is no reason to investigate why things that we do not know why happened happened because we already know that some events have no cause. Therefore, spending the time to try and figure out why something happened is pointless, because maybe it just happened.
If one causeless event happened, then multiple causeless events may have happened. If multiple causeless events have happened, than why is it not an acceptable answer to say that an event that has no known cause has no cause. Or to put it another way, if some events happen without a cause, why should I believe that any particular event has a cause (unless I already know what that cause is)?
The Harvard University Bookstore is run by Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, Inc. Of course, Barnes and Noble College Booksellers was a separate company from Barnes & Noble, Inc until 2009 (although Len Riggio. the chairman of Barnes & Noble, owned controlling interest and was chairman of Barnes & Noble College Booksellers as well).
The problem is that according to current theory, there was no "before" the big bang. There is currently no theory that allows for such a thing. I am aware that some cosmologists have speculated about what was "before" the big bang, but such speculation is meaningless as there is no basis for speculating that there was such a thing as "before" the big bang.
I did not forget explanation three. The teacher was the one who said there were two options. Also, you are missing the part where the logic says that everything that had a beginning had a cause. It is not that everything that exists must have a creator, only things that once did not exist must have a cause.
Except that by making this ruling they have set a precedent. They said that there are no precedents, that means there are no precedents one way or the other. Therefore, their ruling has become a precedent. If there are no precedents one way or the other, whatever the court rules becomes precedent. It is actually the worst possible ruling they could have come out with. They neither said that his actions are perfectly acceptable nor that they are unacceptable. They said that since no court has ruled on this in the past you can't sue him for it. This means that, unless the Supreme Court chooses to take the case, you will not be able to sue the next teacher who does something like this in their district because there is still no precedent (even though the wording of their ruling seems to imply that they think what he said is out of line).
So what we have is a court that appears to be saying that it is a violation of the constitution for the teacher to do this, but you can't sue them for it because no court has rule that it is a violation of the constitution (and we will not so rule either).
If you look at the transcript, you will see that what was said did stay within the bounds of science,...
The problem is that this teacher was not teaching a science class. He is a history teacher, teaching a history class. The opinion he expressed had no place in the course he was teaching. The court ruling was probably the correct one (that there is no basis for a law suit), but the teacher was acting unprofessionally to express this opinion in this setting.
The thing I find funniest is that he set it up so that the creationists are the more scientific ones. He set up there being two possible explanations for the existence of the universe. Explanation one (the creationist one) is that since the universe has not always been here, it was created. Explanation two is that the universe has always been here. Current scientific theory says that the universe came into existence with the Big Bang.
What's a cause and how do you know all effects have them?
The traditional way of stating it is that all things that have a beginning have a cause. Modern science is based on that premise. Current cosmological theory says that our universe had a beginning (the Big Bang). The atheistic version of current cosmological theory says that not only didn't the Big Bang have a cause, it could not have had a cause (there was no "before" the Big Bang).
Slashdot Mirror
I am saying that the Bible does not say one way or the other whether or not God created other people besides Adam and Eve. However, if one interprets things from the perspective of thinking that the Biblical account is true the following logic applies even if God only created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created with perfect genetics (no bad genes at all, recessive or otherwise). Once they sinned, imperfection and entropy were introduced. Every time their genes were replicated after this, there were imperfections in the copying as a result of sin (I will repeat here, this is the logic of the Biblical account informed by modern genetics). There was no reason why incest was a problem for the children of Adam and Eve because there were not yet any common recessive genes between any two of them. Adam and Eve's genes were perfect, all imperfections happened when those genes replicated to produce ova or sperm. Each of their children who had bad genes would have had different bad genes. It is only after multiple generations when enough bad genes had accumulated that there would be significant risk from having children with a sibling that the prohibition against incest was introduced.
Whether you believe it or not, the point is that your argument does not demonstrate that God's plan was half-assed.
The thing is, the Bible says that the most recent common male ancestor (Noah) was significantly closer in time than the most recent common female ancestor (Eve). So, the Biblical account, also, says that the most recent common male ancestor was not the husband/mate of the most recent common female ancestor.
And your point is?
Actually, the Bible does not say that Cain married his sister. It does not say who her parents were at all. All it says is that after Cain killed Abel he went to the Land of Nod, then it says that he made love to his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth (which is the first and only mention of her in the Bible). The Genesis story does not rule out the possibility that God created other humans besides Adam and Eve at some point after creating Adam and Eve.
The thing is, I know a lot of people who oppose embryonic stem cell research on religious/moral grounds. I, also, know a lot of conservative Republicans. Not only do none of either of those groups that I know hold the belief that all stem cell research is evil, but all of those I know are unaware of any in either group who do so. Therefore, while it may be that this one preacher you know (and perhaps his congregation) believe that, it is not a "large group of extremist conservative republicans", it is, at most, a small group.
The point is, the circles I walk in include a lot of conservative republicans, and an even larger group of conservative Christians, yet it contains none who believe that all stem cell research is evil, and none who are aware of anyone who believes that all stem cell research is evil.
No, most theologians that believe in the Big Bang believe that it had a cause. That cause being the Creator. Further, Constantine was not a theologian, he was an Emperor.
Well said, what little research I have seen on the subject indicates that the reverse is true, but it is a poorly studied subject.
Well, that is unusual, because as I said, I know quite a few people who oppose embryonic stem cell research, yet I do not know anyone who opposes adult stem cell research.
If so, would you care to name/reference a few of these people? I hear people make claims like that all the time, yet I rarely, if ever, hear the basis for their claim.
No, we have to overturn the tendency of our government to rule by edict and insist that the laws be clear, understandable and consistently enforced.
But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.
Really, have you ever met any? I do not know of any.
It would not surprise me to learn that, because of the way the press reports on all stem cell research, there are a few who are unaware that there are any stem cells that are not derived from embryos (or, if they are aware are under the impression that our knowledge of them derives from embryonic stem cell research*). However, I doubt there are any that would be opposed to adult stem cell research once it was clearly explained to them.
*Considering how many posters on here have indicated a belief that this treatment probably derives from embryonic stem cell research that does not indicate any particular ignorance on their part.
There are two things I would like to point out. The first is that whenever I point out that all current approved treatments using stem cells use adult stem cells and none use embryonic stem cells someone points out that adult stem cells have been studied significantly longer than embryonic stem cells.
The second point is that the treatment that he received is an experimental treatment, not quackery. It may become quackery in a few years if the doctors continue administering after the studies are run, if the studies fail to prove its efficacy and safety. This is a treatment that current medical theory says has significant promise, but it has not yet undergone sufficient testing to determine if it works as currently administered. It may turn out that the theory is flawed, or that the procedure does not work as currently administered.
First, the change in the funding structure was a result of a court ruling, so it really isn't fair to lay that at the door of Rick Perry. Second, none of the links I could find about how much Texas gave me the numbers in actual dollars budgeted. So, how much was budgeted last year (or whatever year you feel was before Rick Perry started slashing education spending) vs how much was budgeted this year? Actual dollars please, not "percent cut" or "dollars cut" because those two are almost always from projected increases, not from actual spending.
You should be aware that just because school administrators choose to cut teachers doesn't mean that they couldn't have gotten the same savings by cutting administrative staff.
Really? I see a few problems with your accusation. First, hiring and firing of teachers is a local decision, not something decided by the state. Second, I find it hard to believe that the amount of actual dollars spent has decreased in any budget on a year to year basis. I am unaware of any time, when in the discussion of government spending, "cutting spending" actually meant cutting spending. On every occassion I am aware of when they report that government spending was cut, what they really mean is that the government is not going to spend as much more than last year as the people who passed last year's budget said they would. Finally, according to reports I have seen, the number of public school administrators in Texas has increased by 36% since 1999 while public school enrollment has increased by 20%.
Sure it does. As those countries become countries that function by the rule of law, they become richer and more likely to be costumers for our companies. A significant factor in the decline of the U.S. is the fact that it has been steadily moving away from the rule of law and more and more to a rule by edict.
You know what long term helps people in countries like India, China, and other currently very poor countries? Giving them jobs that pay significantly more than the current prevailing wage. The best way to address most of the problems in Third World countries is to increase their incomes. When you look into it you discover that the factories that make products for American companies pay significantly more than other jobs that are available in those countries, and they generally have better working conditions (although that second part is more sporadic than the first part).
Several studies have shown that the two largest factors in improving circumstances in Third World countries are closely related. One, is the implementation of rule of law, which is where the laws are easily understood by everyone, apply the same to everyone and do not change arbitrarily. Two, is where it is relatively clear who owns a peice of land and relatively easy to transfer ownership from one party to another.
I know consumers that can keep a PC going strong for 4 - 6 years without issue,...
That is not that hard, I kept a cheap Dell going with no issues for ten years. I only took it out of service because it was slow enough as to not be worth using anymore once I could afford to replace it.
So, there is no reason to investigate why things that we do not know why happened happened because we already know that some events have no cause. Therefore, spending the time to try and figure out why something happened is pointless, because maybe it just happened.
If one causeless event happened, then multiple causeless events may have happened. If multiple causeless events have happened, than why is it not an acceptable answer to say that an event that has no known cause has no cause. Or to put it another way, if some events happen without a cause, why should I believe that any particular event has a cause (unless I already know what that cause is)?
Harvard University Bookstore has one.
The Harvard University Bookstore is run by Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, Inc. Of course, Barnes and Noble College Booksellers was a separate company from Barnes & Noble, Inc until 2009 (although Len Riggio. the chairman of Barnes & Noble, owned controlling interest and was chairman of Barnes & Noble College Booksellers as well).
The problem is that according to current theory, there was no "before" the big bang. There is currently no theory that allows for such a thing. I am aware that some cosmologists have speculated about what was "before" the big bang, but such speculation is meaningless as there is no basis for speculating that there was such a thing as "before" the big bang.
I did not forget explanation three. The teacher was the one who said there were two options. Also, you are missing the part where the logic says that everything that had a beginning had a cause. It is not that everything that exists must have a creator, only things that once did not exist must have a cause.
Except that by making this ruling they have set a precedent. They said that there are no precedents, that means there are no precedents one way or the other. Therefore, their ruling has become a precedent. If there are no precedents one way or the other, whatever the court rules becomes precedent. It is actually the worst possible ruling they could have come out with. They neither said that his actions are perfectly acceptable nor that they are unacceptable. They said that since no court has ruled on this in the past you can't sue him for it. This means that, unless the Supreme Court chooses to take the case, you will not be able to sue the next teacher who does something like this in their district because there is still no precedent (even though the wording of their ruling seems to imply that they think what he said is out of line).
So what we have is a court that appears to be saying that it is a violation of the constitution for the teacher to do this, but you can't sue them for it because no court has rule that it is a violation of the constitution (and we will not so rule either).
If you look at the transcript, you will see that what was said did stay within the bounds of science,...
The problem is that this teacher was not teaching a science class. He is a history teacher, teaching a history class. The opinion he expressed had no place in the course he was teaching. The court ruling was probably the correct one (that there is no basis for a law suit), but the teacher was acting unprofessionally to express this opinion in this setting.
The thing I find funniest is that he set it up so that the creationists are the more scientific ones. He set up there being two possible explanations for the existence of the universe. Explanation one (the creationist one) is that since the universe has not always been here, it was created. Explanation two is that the universe has always been here. Current scientific theory says that the universe came into existence with the Big Bang.
'All effects have a cause"
What's a cause and how do you know all effects have them?
The traditional way of stating it is that all things that have a beginning have a cause. Modern science is based on that premise. Current cosmological theory says that our universe had a beginning (the Big Bang). The atheistic version of current cosmological theory says that not only didn't the Big Bang have a cause, it could not have had a cause (there was no "before" the Big Bang).