Theme's in enlightenment are incredibly powerful, but if a theme takes advantage of all the possibilities there's going to be a major performance loss. Personally I've written 2 E themes, and I know that my 2nd slows down E a lot. In my next theme I plan to pay particular attention to what it takes to keep that from happening. That said, to me many themes in E are works of art. They aren't meant to be functional. If you want good performance out of E get a simple and functional theme. Recognize that not evey theme out there is meant for real work - particularly if your computer is slow.
Sorry, I've been rather busy today. I'm having problems finding any if the Biology books I've used in the past (I haven't taken bio in a while). When I find one I'll email you.
May I make the point that it is now 3 in the morning where I am, and I've been argueing for several hours straight. Tommarrow I'll pull out a textbook and provide some examples.
>Before I get to the point of my post, I'd like to >point out the following paradox: As I >understand it, God created light, and then >he created the Sun....... Discuss. The sun provides light. If our sun disappears that does not mean that light no longer exists. You could still light a match.
>Now then... the part about what order the animals >was created in is not quite right. First >there was Adam, and then Eve was created from >one of Adam's ribs, right? Yeah.
>And then God created >all the animals, which Adam then named... >presumably in Latin? No, in the language that he was inventing at the time. Naming animals for the first time would probably constitue inventing a language.
My biology book listed flaws in evolution. And it refered to it as a law. No I can't think of them all off the top of my head at 2 in the morning. For starters there are still "holes" in the fossil record. And the most compelling examples of macro-evolution I've heard of involve birds which nobody (including the biologist's working with them) can tell apart without practically disecting the things.
May I make the point that I never suggested killing anyone. In fact what I've advocated throughout this entire discussion is tolerance. I have to consider killing others for their beliefs utterly incompatible with "Love your neighbor as yourself," regardless of what some groups have done.
Two quick points. 1) Creationism is not a religion. Christianity is a religion. Creationism is a belief. 2) Have you ever read Belief by Isaac Asimov? He makes the point that science is often none to willing to accept change.
I go to University of Maryland, and I know they offer cources in many of these concepts. In addition they try to emphasizes the theories behind computers. Any one language is likely to be obsolete in 10-20 years. How to program is not.
Personally I believe that they are in fact unpredictable, although I've had the will power to plug through the math involved. I see no reason why God would not allow this anyway.
Is there a reason that you're so confrontational about all of this?
I'll tell anyone who asks that it's impossible, since I know that if I care to root around in math books long enough I can find the proof. Having seen it once I know it exists.
The Bible does not contain everything. (Unless perhaps you'd like to take the view that since for any two arbitrary strings s and t there exists some function f such that f(s)=t, if you assume the Bible is string s, and you interpret it in every way possible (f) you can get everything (all t) - yes this is ridiculous, though mathematically correct) It does not predict everything that will ever happen. It explains some things, and sets some rules.
It refers to quatum machanics, and Einstien's inability to believe that God would allow the actions of electrons to be unpredictable. And the fact that according to current theory he was wrong. The motions of electrons are not predictable. Yes, Hawking disagrees with Einstien on this. So do most physicists.
It's been 6 years. I have pretty much ignored the topic since then, as my interest lies in physics, not biology. Thus I'd rather not argue the point right now as I'd only succeed in making a fool of myself.
Before you inform me that that means I'm wrong let me ask you a question. Can you prove that it's impossible to trisect an angle? (It has been proven impossible) Does that make it possible?
Slashdot Mirror
It was compiled with debug symbols? (And not stripped.)
Is that exporting the source code, or the binary?
Theme's in enlightenment are incredibly powerful, but if a theme takes advantage of all the possibilities there's going to be a major performance loss. Personally I've written 2 E themes, and I know that my 2nd slows down E a lot. In my next theme I plan to pay particular attention to what it takes to keep that from happening.
That said, to me many themes in E are works of art. They aren't meant to be functional. If you want good performance out of E get a simple and functional theme. Recognize that not evey theme out there is meant for real work - particularly if your computer is slow.
Sorry, I've been rather busy today. I'm having problems finding any if the Biology books I've used in the past (I haven't taken bio in a while). When I find one I'll email you.
I sort of figured that - it doesn't seem very accurate.
Not if Adam originaly had one more than Eve.
May I make the point that it is now 3 in the morning where I am, and I've been argueing for several hours straight. Tommarrow I'll pull out a textbook and provide some examples.
Do you have some sort of basis for this belief?
>Before I get to the point of my post, I'd like to >point out the following paradox: As I ...... Discuss.
>understand it, God created light, and then
>he created the Sun.
The sun provides light. If our sun disappears that does not mean that light no longer exists. You could still light a match.
>Now then... the part about what order the animals
>was created in is not quite right. First
>there was Adam, and then Eve was created from
>one of Adam's ribs, right?
Yeah.
>And then God created
>all the animals, which Adam then named...
>presumably in Latin?
No, in the language that he was inventing at the time. Naming animals for the first time would probably constitue inventing a language.
Why should states explicitly teach anything? Do they explicitly state that they plan to teach arithmatic?
My biology book listed flaws in evolution. And it refered to it as a law. No I can't think of them all off the top of my head at 2 in the morning.
For starters there are still "holes" in the fossil record. And the most compelling examples of macro-evolution I've heard of involve birds which nobody (including the biologist's working with them) can tell apart without practically disecting the things.
I didn't ask for it to be taught at all.
And apparently according to you unless a person agrees with you, no matter how much research they've done on the topic they're uninformed.
So what would you like done about it? Try to express this thought without caps lock. It makes it easier to follow.
May I make the point that I never suggested killing anyone. In fact what I've advocated throughout this entire discussion is tolerance. I have to consider killing others for their beliefs utterly incompatible with "Love your neighbor as yourself," regardless of what some groups have done.
Two quick points.
1) Creationism is not a religion. Christianity is a religion. Creationism is a belief.
2) Have you ever read Belief by Isaac Asimov? He makes the point that science is often none to willing to accept change.
I go to University of Maryland, and I know they offer cources in many of these concepts. In addition they try to emphasizes the theories behind computers. Any one language is likely to be obsolete in 10-20 years. How to program is not.
He meant breed and produce offspring that can also breed. Mules are sterile.
Personally I believe that they are in fact unpredictable, although I've had the will power to plug through the math involved. I see no reason why God would not allow this anyway.
Is there a reason that you're so confrontational about all of this?
My point was that I wouldn't.
I'll tell anyone who asks that it's impossible, since I know that if I care to root around in math books long enough I can find the proof. Having seen it once I know it exists.
The Bible does not contain everything. (Unless perhaps you'd like to take the view that since for any two arbitrary strings s and t there exists some function f such that f(s)=t, if you assume the Bible is string s, and you interpret it in every way possible (f) you can get everything (all t) - yes this is ridiculous, though mathematically correct) It does not predict everything that will ever happen. It explains some things, and sets some rules.
???
Are you refering to my sig?
It refers to quatum machanics, and Einstien's inability to believe that God would allow the actions of electrons to be unpredictable. And the fact that according to current theory he was wrong. The motions of electrons are not predictable. Yes, Hawking disagrees with Einstien on this. So do most physicists.
It's been 6 years. I have pretty much ignored the topic since then, as my interest lies in physics, not biology. Thus I'd rather not argue the point right now as I'd only succeed in making a fool of myself.
Before you inform me that that means I'm wrong let me ask you a question. Can you prove that it's impossible to trisect an angle? (It has been proven impossible) Does that make it possible?
Funny how my post suggested giving all the evidence in favor of evolution. And in fact did not suggest teaching creationism.
I love having my words twisted.
Prayers at the flagpole happened at our high school, but they were not an excuse for lateness.
Yes, he was.
>Or did you just decide to believe in creationism
>for the HELL of it?
???