Breaking the back button can be done with HTML5+Javascript also. In fact I've seen it done many times (and yes I admit I may have done it myself). All you need to do is dump the contents of each sub-page into a DIV element via the innerHTML property, leaving the rest of the page (i.e. menus, footers, ad's etc) in tact.
I don't think the technology is to blame for miss-use by designers and developers. And I think that is what the real problem here is.
$20 says that you will be one of the first adopters of "HTML5block" when the technology is widely adopted for advertisements;). At least with flashblock, it usually just blocks advertisements 95% of the time, and doesn't break page navigation. So without knowing it, perhaps you really actually like Flash as a technology?
It is no more "bold" or "arrogant" than an investigator going to a car wreck and stating "The car was going well over 100 MPH, period".
Disagree. An investigator would most likely have witnessed several 100mph crashes before with his own eyes. I doubt anyone here has witnessed an intelligent species evolve from a previously un-intelligent species. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed.
Each and every day we convict people "Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt" in a court of law, based upon forensic science.
That is determined by a jury and currently the vote is not unanimous.
Oh come on. Well over a hundred years and hundreds of thousands of people.... you seriously imagine there is ANY such evidence that HASN'T been investigated to death and properly rejected?
Obviously there is, scientists with evolutionary biases and scientists with new-earth creationist biases are still having heated debates.
Genesis is Hebrew Old Testament. It was written in poetry and symbolism.
poetry (from dictionary.com)
1. literature in metrical form
2. any communication resembling poetry in beauty or the evocation of feeling Of course it's poetry, that doesn't mean it can't be read literally.
...are trying to take it as a literal science textbook and trying to produce...
It's not a science textbook. But it does make statements that, if true, have implications on science.
The world has not exhaustively ruled the young-earth theory incorrect.
Genesis 1. If interpreted literally, like it is within the protestant church, implies that Earth and it's life was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested. Regardless of whether other people interpret it metaphorically or whatever, this is a serious claim.
Such a claim should be investigated and not rejected at its face value. That is all that I am trying to say. As I said before, since the origin of species is a forensic science, you must keep all the doors open. Many claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, many scientists and normal people alike disagree.
These things alone should be reason enough to atleast investigate intelligent design (or atleast that the world was created rapidly). The question is, if the world was created so quickly, is science capable of explaining such things? How could you determine such a thing in experiments?
Can I leave you with the following extract from the bible?
2 Peter 3:3-9 - (referring to the second coming of Jesus)
'They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.'
Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day."
Please explain to me then why it is clearly outlined in the first chapter of the bible that there are seven seperate days? Are each of these "a long time" and are they all of different length? Reading the text literally in either Hebrew or English does not give the slightest indication of that.
So please explain to me then, why is it clearly outlined that each seperate day has a different purpose? These days are sequential, they are not concurrent. The general scientific view of the origin of species, the origin of the universe and the origin of life is that all these things are happening at the same time. Man and mammals all evolved concurrently and continue to evolve, who knows when another intelligence species will popup at any time, right?
Please explain to me why there would be millions of years of death before the first man of today? For a God that is perfect, surely a world that is "very good" (as mentioned in Genesis 1:31) would not have millenia of death, suffering, disease and killing as science entails?
Protestants had a fundamental problem with the way that the Catholic church interpreted the bible. They didn't start a new branch of denominations for the fun of it.
There was no need for that last statement, we can argue this and be civilised aswell.
Excuse me?
One speaker in the article blatantly states "Humans evolved, period." This is a bold and (imho) arrogant statement considering that the origin of species and the origin of life are both fields of forensic science. Not in technical terms but in terms of; nobody here was at the scene and all that remains is some artifacts that we can investigate.
Now, I was raised in a creationist home, but was also put through school and watched many documenataries where evolutionary thought is force fed. Having said that, at least I have considered both. If I was not brought up in a creationist home, then when am I given the chance to consider creationism?
Many of the facts and arguments for creationism are dismissed outright, without investigating the evidence. Having said that, how many of you have read the bible? Many dismiss it as a "moral" book that should not be referenced in the scientific realm. However, many of the statements in this book have scientific implications. Therefore they should be investigated for validity, not just within the context of Evolution, origin of species, origin of life etc, but in the context of all evidence available to us.
The public realm ridicules creationism because the general thought is that it is out-moded. The source of this ridicule is from the same people who have not truely investigated the statements put forward by creationists. The bible has strong historical evidence behind it and once again if statements within this book have scientific implications, then I beleive they should be given the time of day. Presently they are not.
After all, there is a large resistance to evolution, mainly from creationists but also from others. Even though it is being force fed to kids in school, many still choose to dismiss evolution. This alone is reason enough to not dismiss alternatives outright, but atleast give them the time of day.
Slashdot Mirror
Breaking the back button can be done with HTML5+Javascript also. In fact I've seen it done many times (and yes I admit I may have done it myself). All you need to do is dump the contents of each sub-page into a DIV element via the innerHTML property, leaving the rest of the page (i.e. menus, footers, ad's etc) in tact. I don't think the technology is to blame for miss-use by designers and developers. And I think that is what the real problem here is. $20 says that you will be one of the first adopters of "HTML5block" when the technology is widely adopted for advertisements ;). At least with flashblock, it usually just blocks advertisements 95% of the time, and doesn't break page navigation. So without knowing it, perhaps you really actually like Flash as a technology?
Disagree. An investigator would most likely have witnessed several 100mph crashes before with his own eyes. I doubt anyone here has witnessed an intelligent species evolve from a previously un-intelligent species. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed.
Each and every day we convict people "Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt" in a court of law, based upon forensic science.
That is determined by a jury and currently the vote is not unanimous.
Oh come on. Well over a hundred years and hundreds of thousands of people.... you seriously imagine there is ANY such evidence that HASN'T been investigated to death and properly rejected?
Obviously there is, scientists with evolutionary biases and scientists with new-earth creationist biases are still having heated debates.
Genesis is Hebrew Old Testament. It was written in poetry and symbolism.
poetry (from dictionary.com)
1. literature in metrical form
2. any communication resembling poetry in beauty or the evocation of feeling
Of course it's poetry, that doesn't mean it can't be read literally.
...are trying to take it as a literal science textbook and trying to produce...It's not a science textbook. But it does make statements that, if true, have implications on science.
The world has not exhaustively ruled the young-earth theory incorrect.
Genesis 1. If interpreted literally, like it is within the protestant church, implies that Earth and it's life was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested. Regardless of whether other people interpret it metaphorically or whatever, this is a serious claim.
Such a claim should be investigated and not rejected at its face value. That is all that I am trying to say. As I said before, since the origin of species is a forensic science, you must keep all the doors open. Many claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, many scientists and normal people alike disagree.
These things alone should be reason enough to atleast investigate intelligent design (or atleast that the world was created rapidly). The question is, if the world was created so quickly, is science capable of explaining such things? How could you determine such a thing in experiments?
Can I leave you with the following extract from the bible?
2 Peter 3:3-9 - (referring to the second coming of Jesus)
'They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.'
Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day."
Please explain to me then why it is clearly outlined in the first chapter of the bible that there are seven seperate days? Are each of these "a long time" and are they all of different length? Reading the text literally in either Hebrew or English does not give the slightest indication of that.
So please explain to me then, why is it clearly outlined that each seperate day has a different purpose? These days are sequential, they are not concurrent. The general scientific view of the origin of species, the origin of the universe and the origin of life is that all these things are happening at the same time. Man and mammals all evolved concurrently and continue to evolve, who knows when another intelligence species will popup at any time, right?
Please explain to me why there would be millions of years of death before the first man of today? For a God that is perfect, surely a world that is "very good" (as mentioned in Genesis 1:31) would not have millenia of death, suffering, disease and killing as science entails?
Protestants had a fundamental problem with the way that the Catholic church interpreted the bible. They didn't start a new branch of denominations for the fun of it.
There was no need for that last statement, we can argue this and be civilised aswell.
Do you want to diagnose me then?
Excuse me? One speaker in the article blatantly states "Humans evolved, period." This is a bold and (imho) arrogant statement considering that the origin of species and the origin of life are both fields of forensic science. Not in technical terms but in terms of; nobody here was at the scene and all that remains is some artifacts that we can investigate. Now, I was raised in a creationist home, but was also put through school and watched many documenataries where evolutionary thought is force fed. Having said that, at least I have considered both. If I was not brought up in a creationist home, then when am I given the chance to consider creationism? Many of the facts and arguments for creationism are dismissed outright, without investigating the evidence. Having said that, how many of you have read the bible? Many dismiss it as a "moral" book that should not be referenced in the scientific realm. However, many of the statements in this book have scientific implications. Therefore they should be investigated for validity, not just within the context of Evolution, origin of species, origin of life etc, but in the context of all evidence available to us. The public realm ridicules creationism because the general thought is that it is out-moded. The source of this ridicule is from the same people who have not truely investigated the statements put forward by creationists. The bible has strong historical evidence behind it and once again if statements within this book have scientific implications, then I beleive they should be given the time of day. Presently they are not. After all, there is a large resistance to evolution, mainly from creationists but also from others. Even though it is being force fed to kids in school, many still choose to dismiss evolution. This alone is reason enough to not dismiss alternatives outright, but atleast give them the time of day.