Where were the predictions made? In the Bible? And if their predictions had not come through, then what? Lots of religions make lots of predictions, most of them don't come true.
Let's consider the odds of that single Isaiah prophecy:
Imagine if some archaeologists suddenly found a sunken ship from the American Revolutionary war with a capsule inside. The capsule contains a legitimate note from General George Washington saying "We will not only win this war, but some day, after years of white men presiding over our nation, there will be a black president, he will be the first, and his name will be Obama" -- you would subscribe that to chance -- a lucky guess. That we would win the war, eventually have a black president, and then say what his name would be hundreds of years before it happened.
No they are not. The fact that we happen to be on this planet is not "evidence". If I shoot an arrow in to forest blindfolded, and it hits a tree, according to your logic it must be a proof of gods existence, since odds of that arrow hitting that particular tree are tiny.
Let's narrow the odds of this analogy to be more accurate to the random events it would take in order for the world to have a chemical reaction complex enough to debate LOGIC on an internet:
For starters, to jumpstart life, it's estimated the chances were less than one in sixty trillion. One in sixty trillion that life would ever start on Earth (an ideal planet for life as we know it) from abiogenesis. This is merely to create something unicellular that would last long enough to multiply into similar cells that would also last long enough to multiply. Let's not even get started about a mixture of cells that could actually weigh the scales of logic after you've reached the bounds of physics and math.
I honestly cannot come up with an accurate analogy about shooting an arrow and pegging a one-in-60-trillion chance. If you go outside and win 2 powerball jackpots today, then maybe your luck is long enough to substantiate your argument. Until then, my evidence logically crushes yours and all the ridiculous inference its proponents make to justify it. I believe you have 2 powerball jackpots to win with only 2 tickets, my evidence already did.
I'd like to see them force this hand. The courts will probably look at the issue, decide it's not arbitration, but rather a criminal case (since double-charging sales tax is against federal law), throw out the lawsuit, but send AT&T to criminal courts instead. Perhaps this can all be skipped, if GGP decides to tell AT&T he's contacting the state prosecutor instead.
And when I called about it, it is because the number is a Michigan number.. because it is they can charge a sales tax on it.. as well as tax me because I reside in Pennsylvania
Avoiding a double-taxed good was the focal point of the "no taxing interstate commerce" clause in the constitution. Let AT&T know you're speaking to lawyers today about starting a class-action lawsuit against them for double-taxing you.
At $850 per block or bone, doctors and medical companies will never go for it. Not enough profit to be made.
You got it backward. With cheaper materials come higher profits. Instead of spending $13,000 on an operation they charge you $13,500 for, they can spend $130 on an operation they charge you $10,000 for. Doctors and hospitals don't make money by using, then having to discard, extremely expensive equipment.
Yes, Jews exist. And Mithraists do not (they were killed off by the Christians, as it happens). So what exactly is your point?
That they had predicted such would happen thousands of years before it did. They predicted they would become a hiss and a byword, despised of all nations, and yet they would remain on the earth. Here they are. Isaiah predicted, by name, over a hundred years before he was even born that Cyrus would free them from Babylonians. You give a handwave to all of this without even considering it.
They are neither proof or evidence
They are evidence. You're simply being unreasonable by ruling them out with a blanket statement like that. You don't consider the definition of evidence and you don't consider evidence presented in front of you without being completely antagonistic against it from the start. I can only imagine this sort of attitude from a judge:
Prosecutor: The defendant was photographed leaving the crime scene, covered in blood.
You: Many people walk around that area, sometimes they have blood on them from stuff. It's not evidence.
Prosecutor: We found this knife with the killer's fingerprints on it and the victim's blood.
You: It's possible that the victim could have the same fingerprints as the defendant. It's not evidence.
Prosecutor: We also have a note in the defendant's handwriting, signed by the defendant, saying he was going to kill the victim.
You: There are millions of notes written every day. Chances are that at least ONE of them would be in the defendant's handwriting, saying something to the effect of killing the victim. It's not evidence.
after all the odds of random events creating a world with the internet where we can discuss this is EXACTLY 1. It has to be.
Wrong. The odds of events creating a world yadda yadda is exactly 1. Not RANDOM events, but events. The odds of those events being random is so hysterically low most evolutionists don't bother to list them. If I told you, you wouldn't believe me.
Nothing you have can demonstrably point to a creator. Nothing,.
When you say "Nothing you can say will persuade me" then you are a fool who has nothing to offer the discussion. Ignore all evidence, because randomization is already your religion, and you are hellbent on being a blind sheep of it.
From a programmer's standpoint, as someone who has actually studied and implemented things like genetic algorithms, it makes total sense. It is fascinating how complex selfmutating code can grow with just a bit of natural selection, which is the process of turning random events into non-random progression.
Once your code causes the harddrive to begin assimilating other parts of the computer to make more self-sustaining harddrives, you haven't even reached the complexity of a poplar, yet still, it's not a good analogy, because the code didn't begin programming itself from some randomized event. (which evolutionists describe akin to Zeus tossing a lightning bolt into primordial soup or Poseidon swishing the waters with his life-giving trident). You set it in motion. You gave it a purpose to pursue. You told it how to speak with the I/O ports and that it needs to display rorschach designs on the monitor.
No no no, that won't do. Take the best artificial intelligence we have, compile it and compress it in such a way that the compression algorithm actually contains the instructions and program to decompress it, fit it onto the smallest 128 meg flash drive we have, bury it in the sand. Don't give it any instructions, just bury it. If it sprouts into a supercomputer within a few months, you'll have an argument. Until then, you're a creator and the algorithms are your creation, you are giving it all the energy it needs, and you haven't, with purpose, creating anything as complex as a blade of grass. If you really think DNA is a product of randomization, you haven't thought about it hard enough.
Observational tautology. If the solar system didn't support us, we wouldn't be here to make that observation. Using that as "evidence" is a failure of logic 101.
Perhaps next year, in Logic 201, you'll learn that's not a failure of logic, rather the exclamation "I refute it thusly!"
The fact that Jews, the same Jews that were despised by 99% of a barbaric world, still exist. Assyria? Babylon? Egyptians? There are people inhabiting their skeletons, but there are no state-run human sacrifices/orgies to Ra, Moloch, or Baal.
DNA -- the world's most complex, advanced operating system -- the largest chromosome in the human body only being about 50 megs -- your body's blueprints, ingredients, and everything else that molecules will need to know in order to produce an entire human amounts to less than 2 gigs, stored onto a microscopic SSD. From a programmer's standpoint, any biologist who thinks that was produced randomly or semi-randomly should no longer be allowed to practice science. I mean... your circulatory system ALONE is so ridiculously, yet neccessarily, complex -- and consider the tools that DNA has to build and repair that with for the entire first year of life -- breastmilk. Your DNA makes Angus MacGyver look like Steve Urkel.
Any holy book can be considered "evidence" -- though they stand as counter-evidence to one another on the details, they are at a consensus that our ancestors dealt with a creator.
A planet in our solar system supports life complex enough for people to actually debate on the internet whether this post was made by a random chemical reaction reacting obscurely to photons, or a conscious human being.
Perhaps none of these qualify as "proof", but they are evidence; which is all you asked for.
Customer> I'd like to return my powerbook. It keeps overheating, I think the fan stopped working and burned itself out
Apple> Let's take a look.... I'm sorry, your warranty has been voided
Customer> Why?
Apple> Our sensors show you've subjected your powerbook to extreme temperatures outside of those covered by our warranty.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're most likely just the sum of a bunch of chemical reactions going off at the same time. Whatever you believe to be a "soul" is just an emergent property of those reactions.
A quaint religion you've constructed for yourself -- that chemicals are smart enough to make other chemicals THINK that they're THINKING. What you consider to be "most likely" is less likely than putting a terabyte harddrive in a microwave for a hundred years and having it program Skynet onto itself. Do you really think that's scientific? Do you?
They cannot create a soul... they cannot create the spirit of a man. Human arrogance at its height.
Look at it through whatever religious or scientific view you want. Though our design is not perfect (for example, our knees are hips are extremely faulty) we have reason to be arrogant. As Shakespeare put it:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals...
The brain is merely an organ -- a CPU or command center. It's not neccessarily the user or commander. Humans very commonly act opposite to what their brains want to do. Fighting off addiction, for example, would be nearly impossible if the brain was where every buck stops. Endurance running, when untrained, often pushes a person, through some primal subinstinct, far past when the brain says "THIS IS STUPID! QUIT RUNNING! LET'S GO GET A HAMBURGER INSTEAD OR SOMETHING!" -- these instances are something I would love to see under a microscope or in an imaging tube. It'd probably look like the frontal lobe waging full-on war with the rest of the brain, holding some glands hostage while flooding the system with enough endorphins to keep itself from fullscale mutiny -- all the while still susceptible to the suggestions of all the other lobes saying "Just slow down" "This is pointless." "Knees just sent up some reports, and it's not looking good if you plan on ever skiing after retirement."
When the first cell phone was invented in 1973, the inventor, Martin Cooper of Motorola, was able to patent his particular device. He was required to publish information about the device so that other inventors could learn from it and invent their own alternative devices. Hence the plethora of cell phone companies and options we have today.
I patent a frame with two axles, four wheels and a motor to drive two of the wheels. You patent a frame with two axles, four wheels, a motor to drive two of the wheels, and a radio. You can't make and sell your dingus without infringing mine.
Of course I can. Patents were made to encourage innovation, not cauterize entire branches of invention through the greed of a single, well-worded man. Perhaps a few court cases disagree, but the intent of the system was clear on this.
It all sort of depends on what gender you're targetting. If you want to target the girls, your software should include unlockable furniture, clothes, pets, ponies and a cute main character. If you want to target the boys, include enemies that challenge them "You can never defeat me!", levels, unlockable weapons, armor, and violent situations. Japanimation is huge with the kiddy crowd nowadays. Including such art would not lessen your audience or the games' appeal among minors. Your game is now horribly addictive.
As far as gameplay goes, it's not that important as long as you've followed my instructions to this point. Try playing some of the old Super Solvers games -- we LOVED those games. Don't forget to include secrets and hidden clickables for the kids to laugh about. Put silly trivia in the loading screens (kids love trivia they can tell their parents) like "You can burp by swallowing a mouthful of air" or "A grizzly bear's nose is 1 million times more powerful than a human's!"
Slashdot Mirror
Better to be a forum troll, than a patent-troll any day of the week.
Yeah, who needs yachts to drive on their oceans of money and naked women when we have strangers getting upset over what we think about Linux distros?
Where were the predictions made? In the Bible? And if their predictions had not come through, then what? Lots of religions make lots of predictions, most of them don't come true.
Let's consider the odds of that single Isaiah prophecy:
Imagine if some archaeologists suddenly found a sunken ship from the American Revolutionary war with a capsule inside. The capsule contains a legitimate note from General George Washington saying "We will not only win this war, but some day, after years of white men presiding over our nation, there will be a black president, he will be the first, and his name will be Obama" -- you would subscribe that to chance -- a lucky guess. That we would win the war, eventually have a black president, and then say what his name would be hundreds of years before it happened.
No they are not. The fact that we happen to be on this planet is not "evidence". If I shoot an arrow in to forest blindfolded, and it hits a tree, according to your logic it must be a proof of gods existence, since odds of that arrow hitting that particular tree are tiny.
Let's narrow the odds of this analogy to be more accurate to the random events it would take in order for the world to have a chemical reaction complex enough to debate LOGIC on an internet:
For starters, to jumpstart life, it's estimated the chances were less than one in sixty trillion. One in sixty trillion that life would ever start on Earth (an ideal planet for life as we know it) from abiogenesis. This is merely to create something unicellular that would last long enough to multiply into similar cells that would also last long enough to multiply. Let's not even get started about a mixture of cells that could actually weigh the scales of logic after you've reached the bounds of physics and math.
I honestly cannot come up with an accurate analogy about shooting an arrow and pegging a one-in-60-trillion chance. If you go outside and win 2 powerball jackpots today, then maybe your luck is long enough to substantiate your argument. Until then, my evidence logically crushes yours and all the ridiculous inference its proponents make to justify it. I believe you have 2 powerball jackpots to win with only 2 tickets, my evidence already did.
I'd like to see them force this hand. The courts will probably look at the issue, decide it's not arbitration, but rather a criminal case (since double-charging sales tax is against federal law), throw out the lawsuit, but send AT&T to criminal courts instead. Perhaps this can all be skipped, if GGP decides to tell AT&T he's contacting the state prosecutor instead.
That's amazing. I knew that people in the USA were bigger than usual, but I had no idea they were that big.
That's what she said.
Exactly... that's why I put quotes around fees. They're not fees, they are "fees."
This is why I should start reading comment subjectlines.
And when I called about it, it is because the number is a Michigan number.. because it is they can charge a sales tax on it.. as well as tax me because I reside in Pennsylvania
Avoiding a double-taxed good was the focal point of the "no taxing interstate commerce" clause in the constitution. Let AT&T know you're speaking to lawyers today about starting a class-action lawsuit against them for double-taxing you.
I would wager that some government taxes or fees on the infrastructure is what is causing the high prices.
Or at least, that's what the cell companies will claim...
Oh I'm convinced that very large portions of telecom money go to congress... just not in taxes.
The last soap-opera wedding I saw was Charlene and Scott in Erinsborough (I didn't cry).
Why don't you just come out and tell us you were born without a heart, Mr. Tinman?
At $850 per block or bone, doctors and medical companies will never go for it. Not enough profit to be made.
You got it backward. With cheaper materials come higher profits. Instead of spending $13,000 on an operation they charge you $13,500 for, they can spend $130 on an operation they charge you $10,000 for. Doctors and hospitals don't make money by using, then having to discard, extremely expensive equipment.
Yes, Jews exist. And Mithraists do not (they were killed off by the Christians, as it happens). So what exactly is your point?
That they had predicted such would happen thousands of years before it did. They predicted they would become a hiss and a byword, despised of all nations, and yet they would remain on the earth. Here they are. Isaiah predicted, by name, over a hundred years before he was even born that Cyrus would free them from Babylonians. You give a handwave to all of this without even considering it.
They are neither proof or evidence
They are evidence. You're simply being unreasonable by ruling them out with a blanket statement like that. You don't consider the definition of evidence and you don't consider evidence presented in front of you without being completely antagonistic against it from the start. I can only imagine this sort of attitude from a judge:
Prosecutor: The defendant was photographed leaving the crime scene, covered in blood.
You: Many people walk around that area, sometimes they have blood on them from stuff. It's not evidence.
Prosecutor: We found this knife with the killer's fingerprints on it and the victim's blood.
You: It's possible that the victim could have the same fingerprints as the defendant. It's not evidence.
Prosecutor: We also have a note in the defendant's handwriting, signed by the defendant, saying he was going to kill the victim.
You: There are millions of notes written every day. Chances are that at least ONE of them would be in the defendant's handwriting, saying something to the effect of killing the victim. It's not evidence.
I'm sure you're getting the idea.
after all the odds of random events creating a world with the internet where we can discuss this is EXACTLY 1. It has to be.
Wrong. The odds of events creating a world yadda yadda is exactly 1. Not RANDOM events, but events. The odds of those events being random is so hysterically low most evolutionists don't bother to list them. If I told you, you wouldn't believe me.
Nothing you have can demonstrably point to a creator. Nothing,.
When you say "Nothing you can say will persuade me" then you are a fool who has nothing to offer the discussion. Ignore all evidence, because randomization is already your religion, and you are hellbent on being a blind sheep of it.
From a programmer's standpoint, as someone who has actually studied and implemented things like genetic algorithms, it makes total sense. It is fascinating how complex selfmutating code can grow with just a bit of natural selection, which is the process of turning random events into non-random progression.
Once your code causes the harddrive to begin assimilating other parts of the computer to make more self-sustaining harddrives, you haven't even reached the complexity of a poplar, yet still, it's not a good analogy, because the code didn't begin programming itself from some randomized event. (which evolutionists describe akin to Zeus tossing a lightning bolt into primordial soup or Poseidon swishing the waters with his life-giving trident). You set it in motion. You gave it a purpose to pursue. You told it how to speak with the I/O ports and that it needs to display rorschach designs on the monitor.
No no no, that won't do. Take the best artificial intelligence we have, compile it and compress it in such a way that the compression algorithm actually contains the instructions and program to decompress it, fit it onto the smallest 128 meg flash drive we have, bury it in the sand. Don't give it any instructions, just bury it. If it sprouts into a supercomputer within a few months, you'll have an argument. Until then, you're a creator and the algorithms are your creation, you are giving it all the energy it needs, and you haven't, with purpose, creating anything as complex as a blade of grass. If you really think DNA is a product of randomization, you haven't thought about it hard enough.
Observational tautology. If the solar system didn't support us, we wouldn't be here to make that observation. Using that as "evidence" is a failure of logic 101.
Perhaps next year, in Logic 201, you'll learn that's not a failure of logic, rather the exclamation "I refute it thusly!"
The fact that Jews, the same Jews that were despised by 99% of a barbaric world, still exist. Assyria? Babylon? Egyptians? There are people inhabiting their skeletons, but there are no state-run human sacrifices/orgies to Ra, Moloch, or Baal.
DNA -- the world's most complex, advanced operating system -- the largest chromosome in the human body only being about 50 megs -- your body's blueprints, ingredients, and everything else that molecules will need to know in order to produce an entire human amounts to less than 2 gigs, stored onto a microscopic SSD. From a programmer's standpoint, any biologist who thinks that was produced randomly or semi-randomly should no longer be allowed to practice science. I mean... your circulatory system ALONE is so ridiculously, yet neccessarily, complex -- and consider the tools that DNA has to build and repair that with for the entire first year of life -- breastmilk. Your DNA makes Angus MacGyver look like Steve Urkel.
Any holy book can be considered "evidence" -- though they stand as counter-evidence to one another on the details, they are at a consensus that our ancestors dealt with a creator.
A planet in our solar system supports life complex enough for people to actually debate on the internet whether this post was made by a random chemical reaction reacting obscurely to photons, or a conscious human being.
Perhaps none of these qualify as "proof", but they are evidence; which is all you asked for.
Because Congress didn't work for that $465,000,000 loan. My kids will. Therefore, congress doesn't care.
I just want to know how this bug got out of testing. You'd think "causes AIDS" would be a showstopper
Thus sayeth the Lord:
"It is no bug, yea verily, it is a feature."
Customer> I'd like to return my powerbook. It keeps overheating, I think the fan stopped working and burned itself out
Apple> Let's take a look.... I'm sorry, your warranty has been voided
Customer> Why?
Apple> Our sensors show you've subjected your powerbook to extreme temperatures outside of those covered by our warranty.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're most likely just the sum of a bunch of chemical reactions going off at the same time. Whatever you believe to be a "soul" is just an emergent property of those reactions.
A quaint religion you've constructed for yourself -- that chemicals are smart enough to make other chemicals THINK that they're THINKING. What you consider to be "most likely" is less likely than putting a terabyte harddrive in a microwave for a hundred years and having it program Skynet onto itself. Do you really think that's scientific? Do you?
They cannot create a soul... they cannot create the spirit of a man. Human arrogance at its height.
Look at it through whatever religious or scientific view you want. Though our design is not perfect (for example, our knees are hips are extremely faulty) we have reason to be arrogant. As Shakespeare put it:
The brain is merely an organ -- a CPU or command center. It's not neccessarily the user or commander. Humans very commonly act opposite to what their brains want to do. Fighting off addiction, for example, would be nearly impossible if the brain was where every buck stops. Endurance running, when untrained, often pushes a person, through some primal subinstinct, far past when the brain says "THIS IS STUPID! QUIT RUNNING! LET'S GO GET A HAMBURGER INSTEAD OR SOMETHING!" -- these instances are something I would love to see under a microscope or in an imaging tube. It'd probably look like the frontal lobe waging full-on war with the rest of the brain, holding some glands hostage while flooding the system with enough endorphins to keep itself from fullscale mutiny -- all the while still susceptible to the suggestions of all the other lobes saying "Just slow down" "This is pointless." "Knees just sent up some reports, and it's not looking good if you plan on ever skiing after retirement."
When the first cell phone was invented in 1973, the inventor, Martin Cooper of Motorola, was able to patent his particular device. He was required to publish information about the device so that other inventors could learn from it and invent their own alternative devices. Hence the plethora of cell phone companies and options we have today.
and quit bitching about LAN play. You don't need it unless you own a cyber cafe.
Or have friends.
I patent a frame with two axles, four wheels and a motor to drive two of the wheels. You patent a frame with two axles, four wheels, a motor to drive two of the wheels, and a radio. You can't make and sell your dingus without infringing mine.
Of course I can. Patents were made to encourage innovation, not cauterize entire branches of invention through the greed of a single, well-worded man. Perhaps a few court cases disagree, but the intent of the system was clear on this.
It's not patent infringement if the patented device has been improved upon.
It all sort of depends on what gender you're targetting. If you want to target the girls, your software should include unlockable furniture, clothes, pets, ponies and a cute main character. If you want to target the boys, include enemies that challenge them "You can never defeat me!", levels, unlockable weapons, armor, and violent situations. Japanimation is huge with the kiddy crowd nowadays. Including such art would not lessen your audience or the games' appeal among minors. Your game is now horribly addictive.
As far as gameplay goes, it's not that important as long as you've followed my instructions to this point. Try playing some of the old Super Solvers games -- we LOVED those games. Don't forget to include secrets and hidden clickables for the kids to laugh about. Put silly trivia in the loading screens (kids love trivia they can tell their parents) like "You can burp by swallowing a mouthful of air" or "A grizzly bear's nose is 1 million times more powerful than a human's!"
Quaid, start the reactor. Save Mars!
I am with you. 11.6" is just too big.
Lets get back to the 7" and 8" models please.
Today, we call those "Phones"