I think you can go a small step further and consider not just the time when it was written, but the direct audience it was written to. This might explain why God is portrayed as vindictive. I also think the Bible carries the bias of the author in various places (if not all) as well.
I am not claiming that the Bible is not inspired or anything like that - just making the point that with the Bible, context is everything.
I cant speak for your experience, but I don't think (most) creation-believing people are idiots. They are just victims of very successful conartists. That might sound like that same thing, but I put more emphasis on the skills of the conartists than on the lack of intellectual honesty of the "converts".
I myself believed in YEC (or at least biblical creation) until only recently (I'm 30). Sites like answersingenesis are instrumental in keeping the deception alive, and unlearned people soak this stuff up like a sponge. I never thought about it critically until this year, and most christians never give critical thought to it at all. This intellectual dishonesty is not only encouraged, but the typical christian lifestyle makes it difficult to ever question anything. Those who question the beliefs are seen as a threat and can risk excommunication if they go too far down that road. Others who are still in the community see it and take measures to 'prevent it happening to them or others'. And so the myth is perpetuated. It is really difficult for people who grew up in this environment to change their thinking on it. Especially when it means going back on your own word and making a liar out of yourself and your past. It is also a very difficult thing to challenge your own beliefs, right down to the very core of your worldview. It can be very destabilising and even demoralising.
So all I'm saying is, put yourself in their shoes, and realise that these people have been made to believe a lie, and it will take a lot of patience and time to turn their thinking around. And many of them will resist and fight the whole way. I suppose the same thing happened when Galileo proved the world was spherical (I know others did prior to him, but it was he who suffered publicly for it). People resist change, especially if it challenges their worldview and things they've worked for.
I am still unsure where my beliefs stand...but I approach the Bible very differently now. It is a book written by humans, with many things in it that are now known to be factually incorrect (although it can be argued that these writings served their purpose at the time, or were in keeping with popular theories of the time). As far as it is written by human authors, it is a fairly accurate account of much of Israel's history. By that I mean that it was common in those times to embellish wars or claim victory where there wasn't a victory. From that perspective I do not see it as an elaborate forgery (excuse the potential reference to Ehrman's work here) but as many different books from different authors with different writing styles, genre, and different reasons for writing.
There is debate whether Jesus was a real person, but I think the weight of the evidence lies with those who claim he was real. There is also compelling evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead, or at least it is difficult to find a compelling argument that can account for the apostles' later actions and the lives of all who followed after (there are many extra-biblical sources that tell us of this). We could believe that one or two people might have been hypnotised or crazy, but not tens or hundreds. Many who would have known the truth first-hand (whether Jesus rose from the dead) suffered immense persecution in order to promote the message. If they knew it was all a lie, why would they persevere with it? I'm not talking about people dying for their faith, I'm talking about people dying for what they KNEW first-hand. So yeah, I still have unanswered questions, but at least the creation stuff is all pretty clearly nothing to do with science or our actual origins. For more info on where I'm at now - have a look at biologos.org.
Do I believe the bible was inspired? well, it depends on your definition of "inspired". If by "inspired" you mean that every word was written by God, then no, I don't. But if "inspired" can mean that God assisted in the process from start to finish, and allowed the ideas to be written down, or if there were incorrect ideas, allowed the
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
Would you claim that Genesis 4:1 was not strictly talking about sex? The NET bible specifically links the use of the word in Gen 19:5 with Gen 4:1. Perhaps Eve became pregnant some other way?
Also, I accept that the KJV might be ambiguous, but it is far from being the best translation available these days. Most other translations agree that a sexual act is being referred to here in Gen 19. These translations would not follow the KJV if they thought the translation was doubtful. The footnotes in the NET do admit that there is some debate over what is meant, but gives clear reasons for why they chose the wording they did. None of it has to do with the KJV. You need to give textual critics a bit more credit than that.
Whilst I can see your logic, it sounds like it is you who is using the KJV to promote your interpretation. One simply cannot take one meaning of a hebrew word and apply it verbatim to all uses of the word. Just like english, the meaning of a word can depend on the context. Translations such as the NET do not take this sort of thing lightly, and when all translations agree, it kind of puts the burden of proof on anyone claiming otherwise.
Whatever works, the goal is self-belief. When I mentioned "things you're good at", I suppose that needs some qualification. I guess I was implying "things that you're good at, that are of value to others". This is linked to friendship too, which all ties in with self-esteem. We convince ourselves that if others don't see value in us, then there mustn't be any. It may not be possible to completely get past this, but we must at least in measure be able to believe in ourselves without relying on other people for validation.
Aha, that description helped my understanding greatly. Thanks for that.
As you have probably guessed, my understanding is really just a layperson's understanding, but since I suffered from depression from about the age of 14 through to at least 27 I have always been deeply interested in finding out why/how it occurs. For me the solution was through counselling, but I accept that many are not so fortunate. Your explanation has given me an insight into why that is.
I still think counselling / psychology should be the first step (if possible / feasible), and only after that has been worked through should medication be given. The reason I say that is because there is very likely to be a psychological consequence of the drugs as well. What I mean is: even if the drug were a placebo, if the person taking the drug "feels" better with it than without it, then withdrawal from the drug would bring on depressive symptoms. In other words, the person can become dependent on it regardless of what the drug actually does.
I seem to have developed something opposite to this, where I have found that aspartame / Phenylalanine can lower my mood and trigger mild depressive episodes. I had switched to using artificial sweetener (aspartame based) in my coffee every day for a few months, and during that time I had several strong episodes of depression (not life-threatening, but a strong feeling of helplessness / hopelessness and guilt). It is probably the first major "relapse" since I had counselling (after the counselling I felt great for about 2-3 years with almost no depression symptoms at all). It was only AFTER experiencing this 'relapse' that I considered it might have an external cause. I came across a study done on aspartame where many of the patients experienced depression or had previously suffered depression. The study had to be cut short because of the severe reactions in the group taking aspartame. While it was just a small study and not enough to draw full conclusions from, it was certainly still evidence that there could be a link. I suspected the artificial sweetener because there are many rumours about it, and also because I'm the sort of person who has a pretty consistent diet / lifestyle and that was one of the only things I had changed in that time. AFAIK I made no other change to diet and other than that I was in a stable job and had been in a stable relationship (married) for years. Since then I have tried to avoid aspartame in all forms, and with good results, and the few times I have had even one drink of diet coke etc I have experienced minor symptoms. Really difficult to rule out confirmation bias but all the same I'm convinced there is a link, however weak it might be.
I am not suggesting that aspartame causes depression, but that in people who have experienced depression or are susceptible to it, it can make the symptoms worse or contribute to it. YMMV of course.
From the article: "According to TrustGo, the malware is being spread through online forums and has been found in several packages on China’s largest mobile app marketplace, GFan"
Better revise your "attack vector" description.
Most Android users only use Google Play Store, which not only is not known to be affected by this malware, it also has the ability to remove it from users' phones after the fact - so you're wrong there too.
You even admitted there is malware for 'jailbroken' iphones, which would be a more direct comparison here.
Android likely has more malware potential, but this specific attack isn't a problem for those who stick with Google Play Store. Those who use alternative stores should understand the risks (or in fact, anyone using technology such as the internet should understand the risks).
The right attitude will be the cure for many, but how to get into that frame of mind will be different for everyone.
For me it was all about celebrating my wins and forgetting my losses. Self-belief needs reasons to believe, and you sometimes have to take a chance and try new things before you find out your strengths. Once you find the things you're good at, those are the reasons to believe in yourself. Make this a positive-feedback loop, the opposite to depression.
The moment will come when you look in the mirror and looking back at you is a strong person who is proud of who they are and how far they have come.
I still wonder if medicine has the cause-and-effect mixed up a bit. The chemicals in the brain can be reactive, and higher levels of any of them could be a symptom of something else. The brain manufactures its own serotonin, so any increase or decrease must also have a cause. These chemical levels should not be viewed in isolation.
Based on my own experience, I tend to think that the changes had a psychological cause, and so one should attempt a psychological treatment as a first option.
Obviously every case is different, so I'm not saying drugs aren't necessary for some. But treating the chemical imbalance as if it is the cause just seems wrong to me. It doesn't answer the question of where these chemicals come from (the brain makes them) and why (something causes the brain to make more).
A normal, healthy brain regulates its own chemicals and neurons etc.
A depressed brain tends to have a negative feedback loop where something triggers a drop in serotonin (or other chemicals) and that in turn makes you "sad", which then results in a further drop in seroronin, and so on. When you are actually depressed, the initial cause is probably long gone, and sometimes it may need external help to re-stabilise everything (although I never got that far along, I always seemed to restabilise naturally after a few weeks. the exhaustion tended to allow my body/brain to recover). I'm not an expert in it so I can only go by my experience.
Eventually you start to become aware of some of the "triggers" that set you off, and once you recognise them, you can start to work around them. Your brain forms pathways, and it is just like tracks in soft dirt I suppose (not literally). The more times you take that path, the deeper the rut becomes, making it harder to take a different path next time. But you can use this same principle to your advantage. When you sense that you are heading down the wrong pathway, try focussing on positive, self-reassuring things, and see if you can focus on your good qualities and things you are proud of yourself for. You may have heard people talk about re-wiring your brain - that is effectively what this positive thinking can do. You form new neural pathways by the way you think, but naturally your brain forms habits and if you have pathways leading to depression it will default to those pathways. It is not an easy task trying to change this, and you should not expect it to be easy.
I live by the motto that nothing worthwhile in life is ever easy.
For me it was positive self-talk, and regular contact with friends that really helped. It isn't a miracle cure, but once you find something that makes you feel good about yourself, keep working on it. Celebrate your wins, and ignore/forget your losses. By this I mean, make it a big deal if you experience something positive, but don't beat yourself up if you fail. I also tackled some tasks that I had previously thought I could never do (public speaking, making new friends, etc) and I was able to focus on my successes and use those as a strength to look back on and be proud of myself. From there I found that when I came across difficulty and found myself sinking, I could turn the situation around by thinking positive (eg. 'I can do it, I've done it before, I'm stronger than this, I know I can win' etc).
The goal is to truly believe in yourself, and not require external feedback in order to feel good about yourself. It is difficult, and you may never master it, but remember that every win is one less loss, and a part of a better life.
It's good to know the science behind it, but I don't think medical science can find all the answers without acknowledging the role of psychologists and counsellors.
I do something similar. Even if I cannot choose the question, the answer has more to do with my response to the question than the answer to the question. I choose something that is like an automatic response - that I know is unlikely to change any time soon. So far so good:)
nowhere will you find that the bible claims pi = 3.
It is an incorrect reading of measurements given for a bronze basin. The basin likely had a lip at the top that funneled outwards, and the circumference measurement was likely below the top, or even around the inside rather than the outside. Sure, you could read it as if it was a perfect cylinder, but the verse says nothing about that. Given the time when it was written, I think it's more likely that it was shaped/sculpted. The circumference is likely measured around the middle and the diameter measured across the top. The circumference around the top would be greater than the circumference around the middle. Most basins are built this way. There is no reason for the writer to take a mathematical or scientific approach for that one verse, and not for any other. The chapter is not written for the purpose of someone trying to recreate it.
The context is not a maths lesson, it is merely describing dimensions of something that someone built, from the point of view of an onlooker. Given the time when it was written, it could well have been approximated too. We don't read of any fractional cubit measurements anywhere.
But sure, keep pushing this stuff - if it helps you justify your view of the bible.
There really isn't a single CLI that an average person uses regularly. Even in games, they're being removed from many titles outright. Most chat programs aren't IRC, they're Skype or AIM which have approximately zero typed commands.
Nah you're right, I guess Google is mouse-driven...
I think you misinterpreted what I said, but who cares?
Using writings from the past is a great example, because this is exactly what creationists use - but I don't think that was what you wanted to demonstrate. However, I still think that "writings from the past", provided they can be age-verified, are still "the past" and not what I was referring to when I said "the present". I'm talking about measurements from nature. We can measure things over time, and we only really have limited results, so any conclusions we make from the data we have now, might be included in what I term "assumptions".
But regarding assumptions, maybe we're just using different definitions....for example:
How do we know that radioactive decay has always been constant?
So you could claim that your "let's see what would happen if X was true" covers this one. So that if the decay rates weren't constant, then many areas of science would disagree, and since there are so many things that fit together nicely given constant decay rates, then it is likely that they were constant. This seems to be how it all works now. So long as the hypothesis seems to fit all the known data, it is accepted as true. Then other theories are built on top of it, and we are now at a point where we cannot challenge any fundamental theories because the cost is too high - there is too much riding on it.
How do we know the "laws of nature" have always been there? Where did they come from? To say "they just are" sounds a bit like the "goddidit" argument...yet science must draw the line somewhere. And so we make assumptions, because not everything is testable, and not everything is falsifiable.
How can we use calculations over the past 100 years to extrapolate details from millions of years ago?
What is the point of using the assumptions of one worldview to try to disprove another? This doesn't make any sense. What I mean by this is that current scientific theory/interpretations cannot be used to disprove creation, and vice versa. One can use pieces of evidence to cast doubt on a theory, but that doesn't make any other theory true. People should just accept that neither side will agree and just move on. We share the same data - we just interpret it differently.
I think I can guess what your answers will be, and I don't think I will find them satisfactory. I'm happy to call it a day here:-)
the 2 assumptions were one and the same thing. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
You can apply this to many areas of origins science. When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
Isn't this what you just said WASN'T science?
How many times do you read of some new finding that seems to contradict our current model, and then some scientist comes up with a plausible explanation for how it could fit into the current model, and then everyone accepts it as true and moves on.
>But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
No, no it can't. Because "God Did it" is not a testable hypothesis.
-- BMO
huh?
So the BIble contains a lot of history, most of which we can verify through archeology, and other means. That is absolutely testable.
It also contains records of events that happened. We know the date of the manuscripts, we also know the time periods that different parts were written in, since they have been independently verified against other historic records of each time period. And when things such as the destruction of Tyre were prophesied, and eventually happened, that is real evidence. Same for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
You can also test whether the Bible agrees with itself. Sure many people will claim inconsistencies, but all of these are based on a simplistic interpretation often by people who are looking for inconsistencies, and therefore not willing to put in the effort it takes to work it all out.
There are bits of information and claims made all through the Bible, a lot of which can be tested against things we know now.
So how much faith do you have in the big bang? where is the evidence-based science behind the origins of life?
The Bible isn't the only thing that requires faith. There are more pieces that science doesn't know, than those it does know. Most origins science is not testable, which is why assumptions are made. The assumption that all radioactive decay rates have always been constant, is not testable. Many fields of science are based on that assumption.
In OSX, you cannot: * maximize windows * tile windows * adjust mouse speed enough to be meaningful * adjust mouse acceleration enough to be meaningful (I had some success by just using a logitech mouse) * put app menus in the relevant windows (bare with me here: I always work with tiled windows - one on the left and one on the right. For the app on the right, having the menus at the top left of the screen meant a lot of mouse travel - and when I already had trouble adapting to the mouse speed/acceleration, it led to a lot of frustration). * change the look and feel of windows / widgets / almost anything * customize the OS beyond basic "change your wallpaper" stuff.
The fact remains, you can customize linux to work almost however you want. You can sometimes do the same with windows (with 3rd party tools). With OSX, you must adapt to how IT wants to work. There is no alternative on OSX, unless you really like pain.
I wonder how many people would eagerly go for a non-pentile version and then complain that the battery life is not as good as the pentile version? or complain that the colours deteriorate over time (that was samsung's claim)?
Creationists do not (and should not) scoff at all science.
They may however scoff at the assumptions made by science. To be fair, they should not scoff at all, but just recognise that there are two alternative worldviews (probably more) with different assumptions.
One assumes that the present gives us everything we need to know to explain the past, ie. that the present conditions have always existed. The other assumes that The Biblical record is accurate, along with all the assumptions that arise out of that (creation, flood etc).
The first uses evidence of a few hundred (or is that thousand?) years of scientific records, to back up the assumption that the present conditions have existed forever, and the rest is a model to show that it COULD work, without full evidence to show that it does. Any evidence shown is interpreted using the aforementioned assumption.
The biblical worldview uses fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy, and textual consistency as evidence for its other claims. ie. if A is true, and A says that B is true, then we assume B is true because we can verify that A is true. From there, creation scientists observe our current world(s) to look for direct evidence of B.
Another often overlooked point is that evidence is agnostic. All evidence requires interpretation, and all interpretation has to fit into some worldview, and interpretations are often based on other interpretations, and other assumptions. If any one of those assumptions is wrong, the interpretation is bogus. At the same time, a single piece of evidence could be interpreted to support either worldview, depending on which assumptions are made.
All I'm saying is that science has gone off on its own tangent, and really we should just accept that we could all be wrong and mind our own business.
You misunderstand, as do almost all non-creationists today.
Creationism, true, is not science. But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
Science is not just one single pile of experiments and results that all agree with each other. science represents many things.
So you can divide science into many different areas, and many of those areas wouldn't agree with each other. Science moves forwards through new discoveries invalidating old theories, and new theories being formed.
Traditional science, which I believe is what you're referring to, which has what we might call "the standard model" etc. is built on some fundamental assumptions, including: * the conditions in the world today have existed forever, right back until the big bang, before which nothing existed. * the present can be used to understand the past.
Creation science is just an alternative worldview, with different assumptions. It doesn't seek the same goal, but that doesn't mean it cannot be science. Traditional science uses the above assumptions to try to find details of the world(s) around us. Creation science looks at the world around us and tries to find evidence in support of the worldview assuming the assumptions of that worldview.
The two fields are not really competing, because they don't have the same goal, and they don't always operate in the same fields.
"WP gave me the same feeling I got when I bought my first iBook, fired up OS X 10.1 and realized I had just been shifted up a decade."
Seriously? I bought my first iMac last year. That was when I realized just how tight the handcuffs really are. Just 3 weeks later I sold it and went back to Linux.
Seriously, it looks pretty, but using it just sucks. It is for people who do not yet have a workflow, and who are happy to be told how they must use a computer, and what they must use it for.
The bottom line is, if you can work with an apple pc, then great, buy one (unless you're happy with the way you currently work and don't see a need for change). If you cannot work with one, then don't try to. Accept that what you have is better, because it is likely more flexible and allows you to do things your way.
OSX isn't flexible. That is both blessing and curse. A blessing to some who can change to suit the OS, but a curse to those of us who have grown up with an OS that we can change to suit us. I believe machines exist to benefit people, but Apple seem to think that people exist to benefit them.
I wonder if WP would be more successful if it was released earlier. Who knows?
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
There are no creationist facts. Name one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
With facts on one side (science) and no facts on the other side (creationism), how do you expect to make a comparison?
I know before posting here that this is a pointless exercise, but I got curious...
Your argument is wrong. You cannot have science on one side and creationism on the other. How would you prove anything without science? You have set up an impossible task for creationists.
In reality, it is Evolution theory on one side, and creation theory on the other. BOTH share evidence from science (does science know anything about facts?) - the detail is in how you interpret the data.
Some think the data supports evolution, some think it supports creation. There are further areas where creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive - ie. they are as a whole, but creationism still supports micro evolution, and quite possibly natural selection as well.
Science says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but all the data is based on radioactive decay rates. One must assume they have always been constant, which is a fair assumption based on what we can observe, but an invalid assumption if you believe the Bible. Curiously, all of the matter in our solar system has the same age, including meteorites.
The differences between the theories are in the things we dont have proofs for, for example the origins of life. Evolution has theories on it, but they are either untestable, or not yet verified by science. If it is untestable, it doesn't belong in science (but I thought evolution WAS science? hmm). Most of creationism doesn't belong in science, but that doesn't mean you cannot have scientific evidence that supports the theory.
This argument gets a lot of hype and evolutionists are quick to jump to conclusions. I'll admit, looking at the data it is clear where the evolution theories come from. On the surface it is not a bad way to interpret the known data. However, we still don't know how much of the theory is true. To put it another way, like all models used in science, it is only true until evidence is found that refutes it. And then the model is changed to fit all existing evidence plus the new evidence, and on we go.
However, looking at the end result is not always enough to work out the cause, and the process.
Evolution and creation are both at odds with the evidence from time to time. The difference is that evolution can change the theory to suit the data, whereas creationism must explain the data to match the theory. See the difference? Evolution is a changing theory, not much of what was believed in 1900 is the same today - the theory has been modified a lot over time. In other words, the theory of evolution is itself constantly evolving.
This makes it an impossible target. You can prove part of it wrong one day, but in science that just means you come up with another theory, and onward you march, until the same happens again.
It is impossible to prove evolution wrong in that case. I've also highlighted the problems with trying to prove creation wrong too.
The goalposts get shifted on both sides, and have been for ages. One thing is clear though, the creation story has stood the test of time far longer than any theory of evolution. The fact that (some) scientists do still argue FOR creation even with the knowledge we have, is a testament to how incredible it is.
If you don't believe in the Bible, that is fine, but the alternative is to believe that some incredibly smart or incredibly lucky people wrote it.
Let's see what the theory of evolution looks like in 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I like your approach here.
I think you can go a small step further and consider not just the time when it was written, but the direct audience it was written to. This might explain why God is portrayed as vindictive. I also think the Bible carries the bias of the author in various places (if not all) as well.
I am not claiming that the Bible is not inspired or anything like that - just making the point that with the Bible, context is everything.
I cant speak for your experience, but I don't think (most) creation-believing people are idiots. They are just victims of very successful conartists.
That might sound like that same thing, but I put more emphasis on the skills of the conartists than on the lack of intellectual honesty of the "converts".
I myself believed in YEC (or at least biblical creation) until only recently (I'm 30). Sites like answersingenesis are instrumental in keeping the deception alive, and unlearned people soak this stuff up like a sponge. I never thought about it critically until this year, and most christians never give critical thought to it at all. This intellectual dishonesty is not only encouraged, but the typical christian lifestyle makes it difficult to ever question anything. Those who question the beliefs are seen as a threat and can risk excommunication if they go too far down that road. Others who are still in the community see it and take measures to 'prevent it happening to them or others'. And so the myth is perpetuated. It is really difficult for people who grew up in this environment to change their thinking on it. Especially when it means going back on your own word and making a liar out of yourself and your past. It is also a very difficult thing to challenge your own beliefs, right down to the very core of your worldview. It can be very destabilising and even demoralising.
So all I'm saying is, put yourself in their shoes, and realise that these people have been made to believe a lie, and it will take a lot of patience and time to turn their thinking around. And many of them will resist and fight the whole way. I suppose the same thing happened when Galileo proved the world was spherical (I know others did prior to him, but it was he who suffered publicly for it). People resist change, especially if it challenges their worldview and things they've worked for.
I am still unsure where my beliefs stand...but I approach the Bible very differently now. It is a book written by humans, with many things in it that are now known to be factually incorrect (although it can be argued that these writings served their purpose at the time, or were in keeping with popular theories of the time). As far as it is written by human authors, it is a fairly accurate account of much of Israel's history. By that I mean that it was common in those times to embellish wars or claim victory where there wasn't a victory. From that perspective I do not see it as an elaborate forgery (excuse the potential reference to Ehrman's work here) but as many different books from different authors with different writing styles, genre, and different reasons for writing.
There is debate whether Jesus was a real person, but I think the weight of the evidence lies with those who claim he was real. There is also compelling evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead, or at least it is difficult to find a compelling argument that can account for the apostles' later actions and the lives of all who followed after (there are many extra-biblical sources that tell us of this). We could believe that one or two people might have been hypnotised or crazy, but not tens or hundreds. Many who would have known the truth first-hand (whether Jesus rose from the dead) suffered immense persecution in order to promote the message. If they knew it was all a lie, why would they persevere with it? I'm not talking about people dying for their faith, I'm talking about people dying for what they KNEW first-hand.
So yeah, I still have unanswered questions, but at least the creation stuff is all pretty clearly nothing to do with science or our actual origins. For more info on where I'm at now - have a look at biologos.org.
Do I believe the bible was inspired? well, it depends on your definition of "inspired". If by "inspired" you mean that every word was written by God, then no, I don't. But if "inspired" can mean that God assisted in the process from start to finish, and allowed the ideas to be written down, or if there were incorrect ideas, allowed the
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
Would you claim that Genesis 4:1 was not strictly talking about sex? The NET bible specifically links the use of the word in Gen 19:5 with Gen 4:1.
Perhaps Eve became pregnant some other way?
Also, I accept that the KJV might be ambiguous, but it is far from being the best translation available these days. Most other translations agree that a sexual act is being referred to here in Gen 19. These translations would not follow the KJV if they thought the translation was doubtful. The footnotes in the NET do admit that there is some debate over what is meant, but gives clear reasons for why they chose the wording they did. None of it has to do with the KJV. You need to give textual critics a bit more credit than that.
Whilst I can see your logic, it sounds like it is you who is using the KJV to promote your interpretation. One simply cannot take one meaning of a hebrew word and apply it verbatim to all uses of the word. Just like english, the meaning of a word can depend on the context. Translations such as the NET do not take this sort of thing lightly, and when all translations agree, it kind of puts the burden of proof on anyone claiming otherwise.
Can any business survive without advertising?
I would suggest that most cannot.
Pick any product you love - now tell me how you discovered it.
I'm including offline advertising too - what do you do when you walk through town? How do you 'block out' those ads?
If all advertising is evil, are the companies that advertise evil too? If we follow this to its logical conclusion, I'm guessing we're all evil.
Do you really believe that your lifestyle would not suffer if there was no advertising ever?
Did you even read my post? I could be accused of being an Android fanboy, but definitely not an Apple one.
I worded my post so as to be as fair as possible to both sides, while correcting the previous post.
Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Whatever works, the goal is self-belief. When I mentioned "things you're good at", I suppose that needs some qualification. I guess I was implying "things that you're good at, that are of value to others". This is linked to friendship too, which all ties in with self-esteem. We convince ourselves that if others don't see value in us, then there mustn't be any. It may not be possible to completely get past this, but we must at least in measure be able to believe in ourselves without relying on other people for validation.
Aha, that description helped my understanding greatly. Thanks for that.
As you have probably guessed, my understanding is really just a layperson's understanding, but since I suffered from depression from about the age of 14 through to at least 27 I have always been deeply interested in finding out why/how it occurs. For me the solution was through counselling, but I accept that many are not so fortunate. Your explanation has given me an insight into why that is.
I still think counselling / psychology should be the first step (if possible / feasible), and only after that has been worked through should medication be given. The reason I say that is because there is very likely to be a psychological consequence of the drugs as well. What I mean is: even if the drug were a placebo, if the person taking the drug "feels" better with it than without it, then withdrawal from the drug would bring on depressive symptoms. In other words, the person can become dependent on it regardless of what the drug actually does.
I seem to have developed something opposite to this, where I have found that aspartame / Phenylalanine can lower my mood and trigger mild depressive episodes. I had switched to using artificial sweetener (aspartame based) in my coffee every day for a few months, and during that time I had several strong episodes of depression (not life-threatening, but a strong feeling of helplessness / hopelessness and guilt). It is probably the first major "relapse" since I had counselling (after the counselling I felt great for about 2-3 years with almost no depression symptoms at all). It was only AFTER experiencing this 'relapse' that I considered it might have an external cause. I came across a study done on aspartame where many of the patients experienced depression or had previously suffered depression. The study had to be cut short because of the severe reactions in the group taking aspartame. While it was just a small study and not enough to draw full conclusions from, it was certainly still evidence that there could be a link. I suspected the artificial sweetener because there are many rumours about it, and also because I'm the sort of person who has a pretty consistent diet / lifestyle and that was one of the only things I had changed in that time. AFAIK I made no other change to diet and other than that I was in a stable job and had been in a stable relationship (married) for years.
Since then I have tried to avoid aspartame in all forms, and with good results, and the few times I have had even one drink of diet coke etc I have experienced minor symptoms. Really difficult to rule out confirmation bias but all the same I'm convinced there is a link, however weak it might be.
I am not suggesting that aspartame causes depression, but that in people who have experienced depression or are susceptible to it, it can make the symptoms worse or contribute to it. YMMV of course.
From the article:
"According to TrustGo, the malware is being spread through online forums and has been found in several packages on China’s largest mobile app marketplace, GFan"
Better revise your "attack vector" description.
Most Android users only use Google Play Store, which not only is not known to be affected by this malware, it also has the ability to remove it from users' phones after the fact - so you're wrong there too.
You even admitted there is malware for 'jailbroken' iphones, which would be a more direct comparison here.
Android likely has more malware potential, but this specific attack isn't a problem for those who stick with Google Play Store. Those who use alternative stores should understand the risks (or in fact, anyone using technology such as the internet should understand the risks).
I agree.
The right attitude will be the cure for many, but how to get into that frame of mind will be different for everyone.
For me it was all about celebrating my wins and forgetting my losses. Self-belief needs reasons to believe, and you sometimes have to take a chance and try new things before you find out your strengths. Once you find the things you're good at, those are the reasons to believe in yourself. Make this a positive-feedback loop, the opposite to depression.
The moment will come when you look in the mirror and looking back at you is a strong person who is proud of who they are and how far they have come.
Keep on winning :-)
I still wonder if medicine has the cause-and-effect mixed up a bit. The chemicals in the brain can be reactive, and higher levels of any of them could be a symptom of something else. The brain manufactures its own serotonin, so any increase or decrease must also have a cause. These chemical levels should not be viewed in isolation.
Based on my own experience, I tend to think that the changes had a psychological cause, and so one should attempt a psychological treatment as a first option.
Obviously every case is different, so I'm not saying drugs aren't necessary for some. But treating the chemical imbalance as if it is the cause just seems wrong to me. It doesn't answer the question of where these chemicals come from (the brain makes them) and why (something causes the brain to make more).
A normal, healthy brain regulates its own chemicals and neurons etc.
A depressed brain tends to have a negative feedback loop where something triggers a drop in serotonin (or other chemicals) and that in turn makes you "sad", which then results in a further drop in seroronin, and so on. When you are actually depressed, the initial cause is probably long gone, and sometimes it may need external help to re-stabilise everything (although I never got that far along, I always seemed to restabilise naturally after a few weeks. the exhaustion tended to allow my body/brain to recover). I'm not an expert in it so I can only go by my experience.
Eventually you start to become aware of some of the "triggers" that set you off, and once you recognise them, you can start to work around them. Your brain forms pathways, and it is just like tracks in soft dirt I suppose (not literally). The more times you take that path, the deeper the rut becomes, making it harder to take a different path next time. But you can use this same principle to your advantage. When you sense that you are heading down the wrong pathway, try focussing on positive, self-reassuring things, and see if you can focus on your good qualities and things you are proud of yourself for. You may have heard people talk about re-wiring your brain - that is effectively what this positive thinking can do. You form new neural pathways by the way you think, but naturally your brain forms habits and if you have pathways leading to depression it will default to those pathways. It is not an easy task trying to change this, and you should not expect it to be easy.
I live by the motto that nothing worthwhile in life is ever easy.
For me it was positive self-talk, and regular contact with friends that really helped. It isn't a miracle cure, but once you find something that makes you feel good about yourself, keep working on it. Celebrate your wins, and ignore/forget your losses. By this I mean, make it a big deal if you experience something positive, but don't beat yourself up if you fail. I also tackled some tasks that I had previously thought I could never do (public speaking, making new friends, etc) and I was able to focus on my successes and use those as a strength to look back on and be proud of myself. From there I found that when I came across difficulty and found myself sinking, I could turn the situation around by thinking positive (eg. 'I can do it, I've done it before, I'm stronger than this, I know I can win' etc).
The goal is to truly believe in yourself, and not require external feedback in order to feel good about yourself. It is difficult, and you may never master it, but remember that every win is one less loss, and a part of a better life.
It's good to know the science behind it, but I don't think medical science can find all the answers without acknowledging the role of psychologists and counsellors.
I do something similar. Even if I cannot choose the question, the answer has more to do with my response to the question than the answer to the question. I choose something that is like an automatic response - that I know is unlikely to change any time soon. So far so good :)
bad idea, they might be declared a protected species.
nowhere will you find that the bible claims pi = 3.
It is an incorrect reading of measurements given for a bronze basin.
The basin likely had a lip at the top that funneled outwards, and the circumference measurement was likely below the top, or even around the inside rather than the outside. Sure, you could read it as if it was a perfect cylinder, but the verse says nothing about that. Given the time when it was written, I think it's more likely that it was shaped/sculpted. The circumference is likely measured around the middle and the diameter measured across the top. The circumference around the top would be greater than the circumference around the middle. Most basins are built this way. There is no reason for the writer to take a mathematical or scientific approach for that one verse, and not for any other. The chapter is not written for the purpose of someone trying to recreate it.
The context is not a maths lesson, it is merely describing dimensions of something that someone built, from the point of view of an onlooker. Given the time when it was written, it could well have been approximated too. We don't read of any fractional cubit measurements anywhere.
But sure, keep pushing this stuff - if it helps you justify your view of the bible.
There really isn't a single CLI that an average person uses regularly. Even in games, they're being removed from many titles outright. Most chat programs aren't IRC, they're Skype or AIM which have approximately zero typed commands.
Nah you're right, I guess Google is mouse-driven...
You could've just shortened it to this:
I've never bought the "choice is good" mantra.
and that is why a mac is what you need.
Great for people who don't want choices, but it sucks for those who do.
Amen!
Maybe that's why OSX doesn't support tiled windows, because using the right-hand window causes RSI. I cant imagine using 2 monitors with it.
I think you misinterpreted what I said, but who cares?
Using writings from the past is a great example, because this is exactly what creationists use - but I don't think that was what you wanted to demonstrate.
However, I still think that "writings from the past", provided they can be age-verified, are still "the past" and not what I was referring to when I said "the present".
I'm talking about measurements from nature. We can measure things over time, and we only really have limited results, so any conclusions we make from the data we have now, might be included in what I term "assumptions".
But regarding assumptions, maybe we're just using different definitions....for example:
How do we know that radioactive decay has always been constant?
So you could claim that your "let's see what would happen if X was true" covers this one. So that if the decay rates weren't constant, then many areas of science would disagree, and since there are so many things that fit together nicely given constant decay rates, then it is likely that they were constant. This seems to be how it all works now. So long as the hypothesis seems to fit all the known data, it is accepted as true. Then other theories are built on top of it, and we are now at a point where we cannot challenge any fundamental theories because the cost is too high - there is too much riding on it.
How do we know the "laws of nature" have always been there? Where did they come from? To say "they just are" sounds a bit like the "goddidit" argument...yet science must draw the line somewhere. And so we make assumptions, because not everything is testable, and not everything is falsifiable.
How can we use calculations over the past 100 years to extrapolate details from millions of years ago?
What is the point of using the assumptions of one worldview to try to disprove another? This doesn't make any sense.
What I mean by this is that current scientific theory/interpretations cannot be used to disprove creation, and vice versa. One can use pieces of evidence to cast doubt on a theory, but that doesn't make any other theory true. People should just accept that neither side will agree and just move on. We share the same data - we just interpret it differently.
I think I can guess what your answers will be, and I don't think I will find them satisfactory. I'm happy to call it a day here :-)
the 2 assumptions were one and the same thing. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
You can apply this to many areas of origins science. When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
Isn't this what you just said WASN'T science?
How many times do you read of some new finding that seems to contradict our current model, and then some scientist comes up with a plausible explanation for how it could fit into the current model, and then everyone accepts it as true and moves on.
>But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
No, no it can't. Because "God Did it" is not a testable hypothesis.
--
BMO
huh?
So the BIble contains a lot of history, most of which we can verify through archeology, and other means. That is absolutely testable.
It also contains records of events that happened. We know the date of the manuscripts, we also know the time periods that different parts were written in, since they have been independently verified against other historic records of each time period. And when things such as the destruction of Tyre were prophesied, and eventually happened, that is real evidence. Same for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
You can also test whether the Bible agrees with itself. Sure many people will claim inconsistencies, but all of these are based on a simplistic interpretation often by people who are looking for inconsistencies, and therefore not willing to put in the effort it takes to work it all out.
There are bits of information and claims made all through the Bible, a lot of which can be tested against things we know now.
So how much faith do you have in the big bang? where is the evidence-based science behind the origins of life?
The Bible isn't the only thing that requires faith. There are more pieces that science doesn't know, than those it does know. Most origins science is not testable, which is why assumptions are made. The assumption that all radioactive decay rates have always been constant, is not testable. Many fields of science are based on that assumption.
In OSX, you cannot:
* maximize windows
* tile windows
* adjust mouse speed enough to be meaningful
* adjust mouse acceleration enough to be meaningful (I had some success by just using a logitech mouse)
* put app menus in the relevant windows (bare with me here: I always work with tiled windows - one on the left and one on the right. For the app on the right, having the menus at the top left of the screen meant a lot of mouse travel - and when I already had trouble adapting to the mouse speed/acceleration, it led to a lot of frustration).
* change the look and feel of windows / widgets / almost anything
* customize the OS beyond basic "change your wallpaper" stuff.
The fact remains, you can customize linux to work almost however you want. You can sometimes do the same with windows (with 3rd party tools). With OSX, you must adapt to how IT wants to work. There is no alternative on OSX, unless you really like pain.
I wonder how many people would eagerly go for a non-pentile version and then complain that the battery life is not as good as the pentile version? or complain that the colours deteriorate over time (that was samsung's claim)?
Just to clarify the creationist stance.
Creationists do not (and should not) scoff at all science.
They may however scoff at the assumptions made by science. To be fair, they should not scoff at all, but just recognise that there are two alternative worldviews (probably more) with different assumptions.
One assumes that the present gives us everything we need to know to explain the past, ie. that the present conditions have always existed. The other assumes that The Biblical record is accurate, along with all the assumptions that arise out of that (creation, flood etc).
The first uses evidence of a few hundred (or is that thousand?) years of scientific records, to back up the assumption that the present conditions have existed forever, and the rest is a model to show that it COULD work, without full evidence to show that it does. Any evidence shown is interpreted using the aforementioned assumption.
The biblical worldview uses fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy, and textual consistency as evidence for its other claims. ie. if A is true, and A says that B is true, then we assume B is true because we can verify that A is true. From there, creation scientists observe our current world(s) to look for direct evidence of B.
Another often overlooked point is that evidence is agnostic. All evidence requires interpretation, and all interpretation has to fit into some worldview, and interpretations are often based on other interpretations, and other assumptions. If any one of those assumptions is wrong, the interpretation is bogus.
At the same time, a single piece of evidence could be interpreted to support either worldview, depending on which assumptions are made.
All I'm saying is that science has gone off on its own tangent, and really we should just accept that we could all be wrong and mind our own business.
You misunderstand, as do almost all non-creationists today.
Creationism, true, is not science. But it can be supported by evidence through scientific processes.
Science is not just one single pile of experiments and results that all agree with each other. science represents many things.
So you can divide science into many different areas, and many of those areas wouldn't agree with each other. Science moves forwards through new discoveries invalidating old theories, and new theories being formed.
Traditional science, which I believe is what you're referring to, which has what we might call "the standard model" etc. is built on some fundamental assumptions, including:
* the conditions in the world today have existed forever, right back until the big bang, before which nothing existed.
* the present can be used to understand the past.
Creation science is just an alternative worldview, with different assumptions. It doesn't seek the same goal, but that doesn't mean it cannot be science. Traditional science uses the above assumptions to try to find details of the world(s) around us. Creation science looks at the world around us and tries to find evidence in support of the worldview assuming the assumptions of that worldview.
The two fields are not really competing, because they don't have the same goal, and they don't always operate in the same fields.
"WP gave me the same feeling I got when I bought my first iBook, fired up OS X 10.1 and realized I had just been shifted up a decade."
Seriously? I bought my first iMac last year. That was when I realized just how tight the handcuffs really are. Just 3 weeks later I sold it and went back to Linux.
Seriously, it looks pretty, but using it just sucks. It is for people who do not yet have a workflow, and who are happy to be told how they must use a computer, and what they must use it for.
The bottom line is, if you can work with an apple pc, then great, buy one (unless you're happy with the way you currently work and don't see a need for change).
If you cannot work with one, then don't try to. Accept that what you have is better, because it is likely more flexible and allows you to do things your way.
OSX isn't flexible. That is both blessing and curse. A blessing to some who can change to suit the OS, but a curse to those of us who have grown up with an OS that we can change to suit us. I believe machines exist to benefit people, but Apple seem to think that people exist to benefit them.
I wonder if WP would be more successful if it was released earlier. Who knows?
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
There are no creationist facts. Name one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
With facts on one side (science) and no facts on the other side (creationism), how do you expect to make a comparison?
I know before posting here that this is a pointless exercise, but I got curious...
Your argument is wrong. You cannot have science on one side and creationism on the other. How would you prove anything without science? You have set up an impossible task for creationists.
In reality, it is Evolution theory on one side, and creation theory on the other. BOTH share evidence from science (does science know anything about facts?) - the detail is in how you interpret the data.
Some think the data supports evolution, some think it supports creation. There are further areas where creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive - ie. they are as a whole, but creationism still supports micro evolution, and quite possibly natural selection as well.
Science says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but all the data is based on radioactive decay rates. One must assume they have always been constant, which is a fair assumption based on what we can observe, but an invalid assumption if you believe the Bible. Curiously, all of the matter in our solar system has the same age, including meteorites.
The differences between the theories are in the things we dont have proofs for, for example the origins of life. Evolution has theories on it, but they are either untestable, or not yet verified by science. If it is untestable, it doesn't belong in science (but I thought evolution WAS science? hmm). Most of creationism doesn't belong in science, but that doesn't mean you cannot have scientific evidence that supports the theory.
This argument gets a lot of hype and evolutionists are quick to jump to conclusions. I'll admit, looking at the data it is clear where the evolution theories come from. On the surface it is not a bad way to interpret the known data. However, we still don't know how much of the theory is true. To put it another way, like all models used in science, it is only true until evidence is found that refutes it. And then the model is changed to fit all existing evidence plus the new evidence, and on we go.
However, looking at the end result is not always enough to work out the cause, and the process.
Evolution and creation are both at odds with the evidence from time to time. The difference is that evolution can change the theory to suit the data, whereas creationism must explain the data to match the theory. See the difference? Evolution is a changing theory, not much of what was believed in 1900 is the same today - the theory has been modified a lot over time. In other words, the theory of evolution is itself constantly evolving.
This makes it an impossible target. You can prove part of it wrong one day, but in science that just means you come up with another theory, and onward you march, until the same happens again.
It is impossible to prove evolution wrong in that case. I've also highlighted the problems with trying to prove creation wrong too.
The goalposts get shifted on both sides, and have been for ages. One thing is clear though, the creation story has stood the test of time far longer than any theory of evolution. The fact that (some) scientists do still argue FOR creation even with the knowledge we have, is a testament to how incredible it is.
If you don't believe in the Bible, that is fine, but the alternative is to believe that some incredibly smart or incredibly lucky people wrote it.
Let's see what the theory of evolution looks like in 10 years.