for comparison Lance Armstrong can produce 480 Watts for an hour on his bike. Perfect! In that case, I'll simply replace my engine with Lance Armstrong on a stationary bike. The car would run on water and pasta, so that he can keep up for my long commute to work!
I too am puzzled by the logic of the Minority opinion given how the issue is described by the NY times.
Well, that's why you're puzzled! You're relying on the NY Times for your unbiased news. They lean decidedly to the Left in most of their stories, for better or worse.
Now, I'm not trying to argue whether the decision was good or bad, but I think having a healthy dose of skepticism ( http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/13/129232) is always a good idea, no matter what your News source. I have found that reading/listening to more varied sources, including both liberal and conservative media, gives a clearer picture of any given story.
you are still displacing farmland previously devoted to food, resulting in starvation. Maybe I'm just uncaring, but that is economics. It's not the fault of the Biofuel market if farmers are stopping food production to move to more corn/switchgrass production, even if that DOES cause trickle down, etc, etc.
However, that is a big IF. When you look at the numbers, that's simply NOT happening. We're producing and exporting more FOOD crops than ever before! You don't have to take my word, all the info is available at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome. That's what they're there for, folks; so we can see the numbers. Here's a brief synopsis:
2006 Winter Wheat Production: 1.26 billion bushels, from 31.2 million acres.
2007 Winter Wheat Production: 1.61 billion bushels, from 37.2 million acres.
2008 Winter Wheat Production: 1.82 billion bushels, from 40.2 million acres.
Our yield of ONLY one crop rose almost almost half a BILLION bushels and the farmland dedicated to it grew by over 8 million acres in the last two years! That is simply ONE subsidy out of all the food crop. If you want to blame someone for people starving, look somewhere else. No matter how many time the NYT or anyone else claims that Biofuels are cutting out food exports and killing people in other countries, the numbers simply don't prove it.
*sigh* I generally avoid these discussions anymore, due to the idiocy and blind, unthinking faith on BOTH sides of the issue; I have seen evolutionists that are just as zealous as creationsts, unfortunately. However, since I honestly can shed some light on your questions, and you seem to be sincere, let me step in now:
So my question to you is what other alternatives are there? The next question is whether you have a better alternative than "God did it?" No, actually. The general consensus within the Christian community that believes in a literal reading of the Bible (except in those cases where it's an obvious allegory or metaphor) is that it was a supernatural intervention, with omnipotent God stepping in and doing something that SHOULDN'T be able to happen. This is one of the "faith" moments.
C'mon! God did not pick up a quill pen and some parchment and write Joshua. At best, he inspired someone to write it. Actually, the Christians (and I mean conservative, fundamental Christians when I use that term here and throughout this post) believe that the entire Bible is written in the EXACT way God wants it written, word-for-word and dot-for-dot. The Lord picked those with the writing style best suited to each book, so that it was EXACTLY what He wanted to say. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness ". We tend to stand behind that.
I thought the point of the Bible was that it was originally written by the people who were there, presuming that God told Adam what happened before he was created. But wait! Adam never wrote any of the books of the OT. Adam's great grandson perhaps? And perhaps he needed a better copy editor, because God wasn't doing his job in that capacity. Historically, Moses wrote Genesis.
"Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."
"No one?" It's just him and Adam and Eve, right?
"Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch."
Cain's wife? If Adam and Eve were the first humans, does that make Cain's wife Cain and Abel's sister? Or did Cain and Eve do the nasty to make Cain's wife? (Isn't it convenient that the Bible never mentions this woman or many others by name? God was kind of a chauvinist, wasn't He?)
"Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, 'God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.'"
So... umm... so I guess God created other women in the background so that the... umm... fratricidal maniac could get his groove on and procreate to make an entire line of damned souls. Genesis 4:1-3 "Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. "
Genesis 5:3 "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth."
Okay, a few things to note here. Cain is the first child born, period. At this point the entire population of the world consists of Adam, Eve, and Cain. Then we get the phrases "Later" and "In the course of time". There could have been daughters between Cain's birth and Abel's. There were surely daughters born between Abel and Seth, as Seth wasn't born until Adam was 130! Plenty of time to populate the world. We also don't know when Cain killed Abel, only that it was some point between Abel being born and Seth being born. All we know is that it was
I'm honestly curious. We'll see about that:) Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be glad to try and answer them. The Bible tells me to be prepared to give an answer to any who asks about my beliefs, and I'll gladly do so!
It depends on that "club," and what their stated goals are. If you are referring to the Klan, I'd have to say they are decidedly hatemongering, but that's due to their being obviously outspoken AGAINST blacks and jews. See, that's the other side of the coin: The BSA is NOT picketing court houses across the country, or burning crosses in peoples yards, or leaving black babydolls in nooses from people's trees. As soon as they start that sort of thing, they cross the line into bigotry, and deserve to be known as a hate group. Until then, they are a peaceful organization with good goals, but with opinions that not everyone agrees with.
So, you're saying that when a, let's say a country club, excludes, let's say blacks, they're not being racist, they just 'disagree' with other peoples' skin color.
Bigots are bigots, frigtard. Excluding someone doesn't make you a bigot, actually. From the dictionary:
Bigot: noun
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion
See, you can NOT agree with someone but still not hate them.
What the hypothetical country club may NOT be is "anti-black."
Lets use a real-world example, and see if you can understand another person's POV without your head exploding:
Every Summer in Indianapolis, there is the Indiana Black Expo. The celebration is completely and totally about celebrating black culture, history, and accomplishments. Now, it is definitely pro-black, but it is NOT anti-white. See? Someone can be FOR one thing without being AGAINST another!
Another example: There a still a few all-male and all-female colleges. They will NOT accept the opposite gender into their classes, period dot. Does that make them anti-male or anti-female? Nope. It just means they are standing by their expressed beliefs that males study better with only other males around, and females study better with only other females around.
How about you actually THINK about what it means to disagree vs what it means to discriminate before you start belittling a person or organization?
Everyone has the right to withhold their help from ANY organization whose ideals or methods they don't agree with, and I'll be the first one to support that expression of your beliefs. However, all that I've found the Boy Scouts do is stand on their expressed belief system. They don't agree with homosexuality, and they believe in God, but I've yet to see them march against homosexuality or bbeat children that were found to be Athiest. Please make sure you don't label "disagreement" the same thing as "hatemongering". Everyone has a right to disagree; no one has the right to prosecute another for their beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't infringe upon the rights of another.
Withhold or provide your support as you see fit, but don't think that just because someone doesn't agree with you that means they hate you.
As for the MPAA...there's no real defense on that one. Sorry, LA Scout branch: that was simply stupid. Teach your kids not to steal ANYTHING; don't limit your lessons to music and movies.
I just hope the peasants don't all sound like rejects from "My Fair Lady" this time. I hated that the only woman you could marry that DIDN'T have an obnoxious accent was the Mayor. Not easy when you're trying to do the "all good" type run-through.
"Oh! You really ARE an 'ero!"
*shudder*
And yet, all the prostitutes sounded educated. Hmm...
The fact is there are groups of people out there that are sensitive to certain things. Some of those groups have strong reasons that recently came about for being sensitive to them. The problems aren't equal, so the proportion of offensiveness isn't equal. Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. For the record, IAAA (I am an American), so these views will be about my homeland, the USA, vs elsewhere. However, since my country seems to almost ENJOY being the very height of PC, I think my opinions are at least as valid as the next person.
Disclaimer aside, I agree that this PC crap has gone waaaay to far. From black people being offended by every reference to the term "slave" to Christians being offended that anyone would choose a homosexual lifestyle over a hetero one, we ALL need to stop being so freakin' sensitive! I am a Christian, and a happily married hetrosexual male. I also happen to be white. I'm also legally an Indian ("Native American") due to the fact that I have that heritage fairly strongly (1/8). Am I offended that other people choose to live differently? No. I might not like it, but this is supposed to be a FREE country. Now, I don't want to walk down the street and see two men making out. However, I would be just as upset if there was a man and woman making out, simply because that is a PRIVATE act, not a PUBLIC one! I've had a failr diverse set of friends over the years, ethnically and culturally speaking. I don't agree with my Athiest freinds, nor my Muslim friends, but we're still capable of being friends. I don't think anyone should be using racial slurs, but I think that should INCLUDE the members of that race! The fact that some people have suffered isn't reason to overlook over-sensitivity to subjects, and pander to a group's wishes. This is a free country. Your feelings got hurt, but nothing else? Get over it. No-one ever said life would be rosey and that we'd all get along. Now, the first time someone threatens someone else or physically harms them, they need to face the repurcussions of that act, but otherwise it's just words, people.
They want to show Africa as being predominantly black? Guess what? It is! I think it would be MORE racist to have a game set in Africa and show NO black people! That would simply send the message "you aren't important enough for us to acknowledge your existence." Grow up, get over it all, and get on with your life.
I'm actually surprised that ANYONE replied to my post, as most non-pro-evolution posts get ignored, or marked "troll". Ragardless, thank you for having enough faith in your belief in evolution to reply! Open minds are happy minds.
If you want to define evolution as being = to adaptation, you are welcome to. This DOES seem to be the secular view of things, but it glosses over what most of the arguement is about, and neatly avoids the fact that if it takes millions of years for a species to split and become incompatible genetically (thereby "evolving"), Science has an issue with proof, since the actual evolution of a species is not specifically observable. This also leaves you stuck in something of a rut: For an animal to evolve into a new animal, it would take a large amount of time for individual adaptations to add up. Therefore, there MUST be millions of years of Earth's history! And since there's millions of years worth of adaptations, evolution must be true! So, evolution proves millions of years which proves evolution? Sounds a bit like a circular reference to me! Observing small changes, leaping to the conclusion that this must be how every trait of every animal was created, stretching the earth's timeline to fit the model of evolution and THEN using evolution to prove the revised timeline? Hmm. And they say it takes faith to believe in God!
neither of these prove or disprove the existence of God, only that the current Biblical interpretation probably isn't literal. Something almost every theologeon will tell you, btw.
If you look at the hebrew, the word interpreted to 'Day' didn't not mean a 24 hours day.
So even in the oldest context, Evolution fits fine with the Bible. Oh, really? Most secular theologians would agree that the Bible isn't to be taken literally, but most Christian theologians would DEFINITELY take the stance of the Bible being literal and accurate.
Now then, speaking as one who has studied the Hebrew, I would have to disagree with your view. I'll pick the first verse that talks about Creation, from Genesis 1:5: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
First, "the evening and the morning" are pretty specific to ONE day, aren't they? Almost like God knew there might be opposition to this fact someday, hmm? Digging deeper, we see the Hebrew work used for "evening" is "`ereb", which means "an evening or sunset." Okay, that's pretty clear. Now, then, "morning" is "Boqer", meaning "morning, sunrise, or break of day." Hmm, that's pretty clear, too, isn't it? So, then, "sunset" + "sunrise" = Day. Well, we start the day/night cycle a little different now, but I think we could all agree that that's a pretty good description of one normal day. Just to finish this out, though, lets take a look at the Hebrew for "day": "Yowm". Alright, this word DOES have a few different meanings; it can mean a literal 24-hours, but it can also mean a PART of a 24-hour day. However, it is used in the Bible 2287 times, and 2008 of those times it means a literal 24-hour, evening-morning cycle. At the WORST, if we ignore context completely for the sentence, it would mean LESS than 24 hours.
Now, you may believe that the Bible is a load of bunk, and that's your personal decision, but the Hebrew is VERY clear that we are taliing about 7 actual days, broken up into 24-hour chunks of time, as defined by the evening-morning cycle.
Try another argument next time.
First Reply (to Parent):
Okay, repeat after me: Evolution is NOT the same as adaptation. I am tired of hearing these two terms used interchangeably, especially in the Creation vs Evolution arguement! Adaptation is the natural process whereby an organism ADAPTS physiologically to it's environment. We're talking small changes here, folks, for specific purposes. The two examples you cited are GREAT examples of adapting, NOT evolving. Evolution is taking adaptation to it's illogical conclusion, that if enough adaptations happen over a long enough period of time, then suddenly we have two completely different species! No sane Christian will argue that God made creatures capable of adapting to their environment. What we WILL argue with is the thought that long-term evolution can be proven my short-term adaptation. There is no OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution, as the time-scale needed is too large, understand?
Second Reply (regarding article): Actually, most Christian will argue that the Bible (our basis for belief) is great proof that aliens do NOT exist. The end of all Creation is described as being destroyed by fire after the Millinial Reign, directly after Satan et al are thrown into the burning lake. Another way the end is described is "All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll" (Isaiah 34:4) Boy. that doesn't sound very fair to any alien life-forms, does it? If they are intelligent, then they sin, as stated in Romans (3:23): "Al have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And yet, Christ never died for them, as the Bible is quite clear that He came and died only once: "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (1st Peter 3:18)
The Bible also states that God is wholly Just, so wouldn't it be out of character for Him to create a race of intelligent, sinful beings, and then kill them with no hope of restitution? I don't know what "god" YOU serve, but the Lord God Almighty, Yahweh, is NOT that kind of God!
The size of your monitor isn't significant; Actually, the size of YOUR monitor isn't significant; MY monitor is magnificent, and fierce, and huge-ish;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's why you're puzzled! You're relying on the NY Times for your unbiased news. They lean decidedly to the Left in most of their stories, for better or worse.
Now, I'm not trying to argue whether the decision was good or bad, but I think having a healthy dose of skepticism ( http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/13/129232) is always a good idea, no matter what your News source. I have found that reading/listening to more varied sources, including both liberal and conservative media, gives a clearer picture of any given story.
Just my $.02.However, that is a big IF. When you look at the numbers, that's simply NOT happening. We're producing and exporting more FOOD crops than ever before! You don't have to take my word, all the info is available at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome. That's what they're there for, folks; so we can see the numbers. Here's a brief synopsis:
2006 Winter Wheat Production: 1.26 billion bushels, from 31.2 million acres.
2007 Winter Wheat Production: 1.61 billion bushels, from 37.2 million acres.
2008 Winter Wheat Production: 1.82 billion bushels, from 40.2 million acres.
Our yield of ONLY one crop rose almost almost half a BILLION bushels and the farmland dedicated to it grew by over 8 million acres in the last two years! That is simply ONE subsidy out of all the food crop. If you want to blame someone for people starving, look somewhere else. No matter how many time the NYT or anyone else claims that Biofuels are cutting out food exports and killing people in other countries, the numbers simply don't prove it.It depends on that "club," and what their stated goals are. If you are referring to the Klan, I'd have to say they are decidedly hatemongering, but that's due to their being obviously outspoken AGAINST blacks and jews. See, that's the other side of the coin: The BSA is NOT picketing court houses across the country, or burning crosses in peoples yards, or leaving black babydolls in nooses from people's trees. As soon as they start that sort of thing, they cross the line into bigotry, and deserve to be known as a hate group. Until then, they are a peaceful organization with good goals, but with opinions that not everyone agrees with.
Everyone has the right to withhold their help from ANY organization whose ideals or methods they don't agree with, and I'll be the first one to support that expression of your beliefs. However, all that I've found the Boy Scouts do is stand on their expressed belief system. They don't agree with homosexuality, and they believe in God, but I've yet to see them march against homosexuality or bbeat children that were found to be Athiest. Please make sure you don't label "disagreement" the same thing as "hatemongering". Everyone has a right to disagree; no one has the right to prosecute another for their beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't infringe upon the rights of another. Withhold or provide your support as you see fit, but don't think that just because someone doesn't agree with you that means they hate you. As for the MPAA...there's no real defense on that one. Sorry, LA Scout branch: that was simply stupid. Teach your kids not to steal ANYTHING; don't limit your lessons to music and movies.
Wouldn't that be Congress?
I just hope the peasants don't all sound like rejects from "My Fair Lady" this time. I hated that the only woman you could marry that DIDN'T have an obnoxious accent was the Mayor. Not easy when you're trying to do the "all good" type run-through. "Oh! You really ARE an 'ero!" *shudder* And yet, all the prostitutes sounded educated. Hmm...
...you should have shown her your hard drive and not your floppy? Most women simply aren't impressed by a 3.5" anymore...
I'm actually surprised that ANYONE replied to my post, as most non-pro-evolution posts get ignored, or marked "troll". Ragardless, thank you for having enough faith in your belief in evolution to reply! Open minds are happy minds. If you want to define evolution as being = to adaptation, you are welcome to. This DOES seem to be the secular view of things, but it glosses over what most of the arguement is about, and neatly avoids the fact that if it takes millions of years for a species to split and become incompatible genetically (thereby "evolving"), Science has an issue with proof, since the actual evolution of a species is not specifically observable. This also leaves you stuck in something of a rut: For an animal to evolve into a new animal, it would take a large amount of time for individual adaptations to add up. Therefore, there MUST be millions of years of Earth's history! And since there's millions of years worth of adaptations, evolution must be true! So, evolution proves millions of years which proves evolution? Sounds a bit like a circular reference to me! Observing small changes, leaping to the conclusion that this must be how every trait of every animal was created, stretching the earth's timeline to fit the model of evolution and THEN using evolution to prove the revised timeline? Hmm. And they say it takes faith to believe in God!
First Reply (to Parent): Okay, repeat after me: Evolution is NOT the same as adaptation. I am tired of hearing these two terms used interchangeably, especially in the Creation vs Evolution arguement! Adaptation is the natural process whereby an organism ADAPTS physiologically to it's environment. We're talking small changes here, folks, for specific purposes. The two examples you cited are GREAT examples of adapting, NOT evolving. Evolution is taking adaptation to it's illogical conclusion, that if enough adaptations happen over a long enough period of time, then suddenly we have two completely different species! No sane Christian will argue that God made creatures capable of adapting to their environment. What we WILL argue with is the thought that long-term evolution can be proven my short-term adaptation. There is no OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution, as the time-scale needed is too large, understand? Second Reply (regarding article): Actually, most Christian will argue that the Bible (our basis for belief) is great proof that aliens do NOT exist. The end of all Creation is described as being destroyed by fire after the Millinial Reign, directly after Satan et al are thrown into the burning lake. Another way the end is described is "All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll" (Isaiah 34:4) Boy. that doesn't sound very fair to any alien life-forms, does it? If they are intelligent, then they sin, as stated in Romans (3:23): "Al have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And yet, Christ never died for them, as the Bible is quite clear that He came and died only once: "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (1st Peter 3:18) The Bible also states that God is wholly Just, so wouldn't it be out of character for Him to create a race of intelligent, sinful beings, and then kill them with no hope of restitution? I don't know what "god" YOU serve, but the Lord God Almighty, Yahweh, is NOT that kind of God!