It is not "faith" if it is supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence, as evolution theory is.
No, there are many problems with evolutionary theory that require a faith in it. But I am not by saying that, denying that it is true. It may well be true. You, like the people I am talking about, make the mistake of assuming that any person who questions it is some kind of relgious fanatic or stupid person. In this, you share the dogmatic positions of the religious zealot.
Some facts are undeniable. The world is a sphere. Nobody is looking for more evidence that the world is a sphere. It cannot be contested. If evolution bore this status then there would not be the need to look for evidence. Evolutionists' faith in their theory drives them on to find that evidence. I have not said that their faith is misplaced!
Again, there is no evidence of the divine, that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class.
I respectfully disagree about the evidence for the divine. Anyway, I never said that God should be taught in science class and I don't say it now.
Science doesn't absolutely prove anything. Your saying it should belies a basic misunderstanding of what science is.
Yup, I just must not understand science. That's my problem.
Just because you (and others of your ilk)...
Nice. Once again, my ilk./p>
This is absolute bollocks and leaves me wondering why I even debate with someone like you. Not only would my alarm clock and my company suddenly have to cease to function overnight, the very solar system would have to cease to function. If you call that "faith", then it is a completely different kind of faith from religious faith, and the two shouldn't be compared as you are attempting to do.
Yes, religious faith. That's the stuff that people believe even though its irrational, right?
If you knew your alarm clock was going to fail (due to power outage) then you would not bother to set it. You have faith that it will work. If you knew you were going to be fired tomorrow, you would not go to work. You believe the job will still be there. Its not bollocks that these are faith assumptions- its only BS if you define faith as an irrational choice. I am defining it as a rational choice. I did not suggest that they would all fail at once, but that we have faith, based on evidence that none of them will fail. Some have a higher probability of failure than others.
Please offer us some empirical evidence of a deity.
I would if you really wanted it but that seems unlikely to me given your blind-faith based statement that there is no evidence for the divine.
"Intelligent Design" doesn't move anything forward, it is a political movement consisting of nothing but empty speculation based on religion.
When did I say I supported intelligent design? My point was simply the idea of faith as based on evidence and the viceral reaction certain people have when that faith is challenged. I don't agree with the intelligent design movement but you seem to have put me in that camp because of my questioning.
This is simply not true. Evolutionary biologists find flaws in existing theories of evolution fairly often, and the theories are adjusted accordingly over time. This is simply how all science, including biology, works; there is no crisis of faith as you claim.
Yes it is true IMHO. I don't think the previous poster was talking about flaws in the existing theory but something much deeper than that. Many evolutionists operate under the faith that evolution occured and it occurred purely through natural processes. No divine or other intervention has been involved. Any attempt to suggest teaching people otherwise is met with stiff and dogmatic resistance. It has not been absolutely proved that only natural processes have brought about our current situation, ergo faith is involved. They may believe that all the evidence points to their conclution, but it is still faith. And some, some, put out all the anger and indignation and name calling that previous faiths in history have put out.
Now before anyone gets upset, I want to point out that some people's definition of faith = believing in spite of evidence. That is called blind faith. I'm arguing that faith is believing something for which evidence exists but cannot be absolutely proven. E.g. Why do you set your alarm clock in the morning? Because you have faith that it will work, that the sun will rise, that your job will still exist, etc. You have no absolute proof of this, but you have pretty good evidence that these things will be so.
Many people hold the same view about God that others hold about evolution. They have investigated evidence and asked the questions to satisfy them that they can put their faith in God. Thus, some of them bristle and fight when their faith is challenged. But that is not to say that evidence for a creator is moot.
I hope that all of us can try to be humble and agree that we should really all be looking for the truth. Some are so entrenched that they cannot see anything but what they want to see, but others of us can debate and listen and move the ball forward.
- Well we have to take care of our national security first before any rights really matter
Look, its simple. There's only a finite amount of liberty to go around. As we bring liberty to the Middle East, it necessitates that some liberty will decrease for us. Its a sacrifice we must make for spreading liberty around. Eventually the entire planet will have a mediocre amount of liberty. The law of conservation of liberty dictates that this must be so. I hope this clears everything up.
I'm getting sick of the far left running around like a bunch of chicken littles. No, the sky isn't falling. No, President Bush is not simultaneously the dummest man on the face of the planet and yet so intelligent to manage a vast conspiracy involving all three branches of government, all four branched of the military. No, Dick Cheney is not Satan.
Ok fine. I just want you to imagine a president Hillary Rothem Clinton with the Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, "torture" directives, and seizure abilities that are now afforded to president Bush. Doesn't look so good to you now does it? The point is NOT what is going on now, the point is the slippery slope of eroding rights that will eventually lead to an imperial presidency. I point out to you that even conservatives are taken aback at some of the stuff going on in the Bush Presidency. Notably Bob Barr and George Will who recently called Bush's powers "Monarchachal."
Finally the portal companies shed their idealism about changing the world and have become like every other corporation with power: willing to sell out ideals, ethics, and even people in the name of profit!/sark.
Unless the MLB can claim IP on the game itself they will loose out eventually. In a year or so the fantasy leagues will be more competitive, more interesting and more commercial then anything the stadiums have to offer.
Why is it some businesses get so mad when somebody makes aftermarket money off of them? Is there no end to this greed? Don't they make enough money as is? If somebody were making copies of the games and pressing DVDs and selling them I could see it- but aftermarket additions like Fantasy Baseball actually help baseball. More people will watch more games. People will watch teams they don't like because they have a fantasy player on that team. Greed usually loses. Winning this case will hurt the MLB.
Just installed Flip4Mac from the Microsoft download page, and while it works, Safari now crashes if I switch tabs or navigate away from the page after playing a clip.
Yeah, well I just installed it an went to comedycentral to view some Daily Show clips. Every clip I tried to watch told me the URL was invalid. I was able to do it before with Media Player- although it always hung up halfway through and only played the audio. I was hoping that finally my dilemma of crappy playback would be solved, but apparently not.
You don't realize how much DVDs suck until you see them on a good monitor.
Boy, you got that right. I have heard people claim how much better DVD is than VHS- but a high quality VHS tape is better (the first few times you view it). Anyone who has ever watched a sunrise/sunset on a DVD will notice how crummy the quality really is. The lack of subtlety in the colors is quite striking. It ends up looking like a bunch of thick bands of colors one after another. I wonder is this from the compression or what?
Yes, Microsoft has the desktop market, but they are too clumsy to see this through. Music purchasing requries a finesse that they do not have. Apple has made its mark in the content delievery medium. It goes beyond PC applications into an ease of use, integrated delivery system. I predict this to be DOA. Savvy people won't put up with the hoops they have to jump through to get their content.
Now, before the internet, you would have to be familiar with librarys and card catalogs -- learning how to use those efficiently would have been of much greater value than memorizing a bunch of discrete facts.
But of course you have to trust the methods by which you get that info. E. g. Google is now in a position where they will sorely be tempted to bend their results toward commercial interests. Hopefully, they will not give in. However, even having said that, who is to say their results provide the most relevant information to the topic you are searching? The public library card catalog and a good librarian are likely a better source of knowledge, albeit a slower one.
Given your (valid) premise, we must not only learn to use the technology of search, but we must also learn to filter the results wisely- which is difficult and I'm not even sure how one would go about checking it. Any ideas?
Jesus didn't sacrifice his own life so that others could live. Jesus was resurrected and continues to live. So in reality he sacrified nothing other than having to endure being human for a while like the rest of us.
That may be your belief, but the generally accepted doctrine was that Jesus took upon himself the wrath of God for each person on Earth. In essence, going to hell for each person. The reason he could do it in a finite amount of time is because he was God, and God is infinite. I've heard it described as: emptying a lake with a glass takes a long time, but if you dump the lake into an empty lake, it goes all at once.
So Jesus did experience the punishment for guilt, but because he is God he can return from it. That makes it no less of punishment in volume. Anyway, that's the logic of it.
Maybe we just don't see anything just or right about sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty
Er, maybe the idea of someone sacrificing their own life so another or others may live is noble. Are you saying you would rather God punish the guilty instead of saving them? Then you definitely have a problem with Christianity. Christianity itself admits that it is an offensive message that will really annoy people because it says that everyone is guilty.
Of course, for those who consider themselves guilty, it is a welcome relief to be forgiven by their creator. It is interesting to note that Jesus was never angry at the "sinners" but he was very angry with the Pharisees who believed they were not guilty.
Why is First Contact on the list at all. It had to have one of the most hard to believe premises of all space movie history. One guy by himself, in a post-apocalypse world, builds a warp drive spaceship and says he did it to get chicks!? That has got to be one of the dumbest subplots in recent memory. I'm sorry, I just could not suspend disbelief for that one. Oh, and I felt that the Queen Borg idea, while clever, pretty much ruined the original Borg concept entirely. I was entertained by the movie to a degree, but it's not on my top 10.
Empire Strikes Back was also the best Star Wars movie IMHO.
From the article:Cinecast movie review show was one of the site's featured offerings. The exposure...sent their show...up the iTunes' list of the top 100 podcasts, peaking at No. 13... Then Roger Ebert showed up...Within a few short days, Ebert & Roeper climbed to No. 2, while Cinecast dropped to 72.
I don't know if a direct connection can be made here. It's more likely that Cinecast got an initial bump from the first downloads and then only a percentage of people decided to keep with it. Same with Ebert. It is likely that it will also drop off after the initial first downloads.
Having said that though, a lot of indie podcasts, even the top ones, suffer from a distinct lack of professionalism. I don't mean just lack of a radio voice or something like that, I mean stuff like loooong intros and spending literally half the show talking about how you can contact the show. There's a real lack of understanding about how to keep people interested. A lot are good though, but to keep up with mainstream media, indicasts are going to have to minimize the boring stuff.
It's still got overpriced crappy fruit and vegetables and an awful selection of everything at any time of the day though
Agreed. Which makes the point of the article moot in my opinion. Sanesbury's was better, but it was further away from me so I ended up at the Tesco more often than I would like.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not "faith" if it is supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence, as evolution theory is.
No, there are many problems with evolutionary theory that require a faith in it. But I am not by saying that, denying that it is true. It may well be true. You, like the people I am talking about, make the mistake of assuming that any person who questions it is some kind of relgious fanatic or stupid person. In this, you share the dogmatic positions of the religious zealot.
Some facts are undeniable. The world is a sphere. Nobody is looking for more evidence that the world is a sphere. It cannot be contested. If evolution bore this status then there would not be the need to look for evidence. Evolutionists' faith in their theory drives them on to find that evidence. I have not said that their faith is misplaced!
Again, there is no evidence of the divine, that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class.
I respectfully disagree about the evidence for the divine. Anyway, I never said that God should be taught in science class and I don't say it now.
Science doesn't absolutely prove anything. Your saying it should belies a basic misunderstanding of what science is.
Yup, I just must not understand science. That's my problem.
Just because you (and others of your ilk)...
Nice. Once again, my ilk./p>
This is absolute bollocks and leaves me wondering why I even debate with someone like you. Not only would my alarm clock and my company suddenly have to cease to function overnight, the very solar system would have to cease to function. If you call that "faith", then it is a completely different kind of faith from religious faith, and the two shouldn't be compared as you are attempting to do.
Yes, religious faith. That's the stuff that people believe even though its irrational, right?
If you knew your alarm clock was going to fail (due to power outage) then you would not bother to set it. You have faith that it will work. If you knew you were going to be fired tomorrow, you would not go to work. You believe the job will still be there. Its not bollocks that these are faith assumptions- its only BS if you define faith as an irrational choice. I am defining it as a rational choice. I did not suggest that they would all fail at once, but that we have faith, based on evidence that none of them will fail. Some have a higher probability of failure than others.
Please offer us some empirical evidence of a deity.
I would if you really wanted it but that seems unlikely to me given your blind-faith based statement that there is no evidence for the divine.
"Intelligent Design" doesn't move anything forward, it is a political movement consisting of nothing but empty speculation based on religion.
When did I say I supported intelligent design? My point was simply the idea of faith as based on evidence and the viceral reaction certain people have when that faith is challenged. I don't agree with the intelligent design movement but you seem to have put me in that camp because of my questioning.
This is simply not true. Evolutionary biologists find flaws in existing theories of evolution fairly often, and the theories are adjusted accordingly over time. This is simply how all science, including biology, works; there is no crisis of faith as you claim.
Yes it is true IMHO. I don't think the previous poster was talking about flaws in the existing theory but something much deeper than that. Many evolutionists operate under the faith that evolution occured and it occurred purely through natural processes. No divine or other intervention has been involved. Any attempt to suggest teaching people otherwise is met with stiff and dogmatic resistance. It has not been absolutely proved that only natural processes have brought about our current situation, ergo faith is involved. They may believe that all the evidence points to their conclution, but it is still faith. And some, some, put out all the anger and indignation and name calling that previous faiths in history have put out.
Now before anyone gets upset, I want to point out that some people's definition of faith = believing in spite of evidence. That is called blind faith. I'm arguing that faith is believing something for which evidence exists but cannot be absolutely proven. E.g. Why do you set your alarm clock in the morning? Because you have faith that it will work, that the sun will rise, that your job will still exist, etc. You have no absolute proof of this, but you have pretty good evidence that these things will be so.
Many people hold the same view about God that others hold about evolution. They have investigated evidence and asked the questions to satisfy them that they can put their faith in God. Thus, some of them bristle and fight when their faith is challenged. But that is not to say that evidence for a creator is moot.
I hope that all of us can try to be humble and agree that we should really all be looking for the truth. Some are so entrenched that they cannot see anything but what they want to see, but others of us can debate and listen and move the ball forward.
I should get that checked out....
Don't worry, it's just that blueberry moon pie you ate last night.
- Well we have to take care of our national security first before any rights really matter
Look, its simple. There's only a finite amount of liberty to go around. As we bring liberty to the Middle East, it necessitates that some liberty will decrease for us. Its a sacrifice we must make for spreading liberty around. Eventually the entire planet will have a mediocre amount of liberty. The law of conservation of liberty dictates that this must be so. I hope this clears everything up.
...else you'll only see it in, uh, one half dee.
I'm getting sick of the far left running around like a bunch of chicken littles. No, the sky isn't falling. No, President Bush is not simultaneously the dummest man on the face of the planet and yet so intelligent to manage a vast conspiracy involving all three branches of government, all four branched of the military. No, Dick Cheney is not Satan.
Ok fine. I just want you to imagine a president Hillary Rothem Clinton with the Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, "torture" directives, and seizure abilities that are now afforded to president Bush. Doesn't look so good to you now does it? The point is NOT what is going on now, the point is the slippery slope of eroding rights that will eventually lead to an imperial presidency. I point out to you that even conservatives are taken aback at some of the stuff going on in the Bush Presidency. Notably Bob Barr and George Will who recently called Bush's powers "Monarchachal."
I guess kids will have to stick to the real thing.
I only wish graffiti writing and street fighting would work to remove the current crop of corrupt government officials. Alas, it's not that simple.
Finally the portal companies shed their idealism about changing the world and have become like every other corporation with power: willing to sell out ideals, ethics, and even people in the name of profit! /sark.
Unless the MLB can claim IP on the game itself they will loose out eventually. In a year or so the fantasy leagues will be more competitive, more interesting and more commercial then anything the stadiums have to offer.
Why is it some businesses get so mad when somebody makes aftermarket money off of them? Is there no end to this greed? Don't they make enough money as is? If somebody were making copies of the games and pressing DVDs and selling them I could see it- but aftermarket additions like Fantasy Baseball actually help baseball. More people will watch more games. People will watch teams they don't like because they have a fantasy player on that team. Greed usually loses. Winning this case will hurt the MLB.
Look, we still can't go faster than light, ok guys?
If we could just contact Sigma Draconis VI we could skip past warp drive altogether!
I mean that';s sort of like having to pay for cable and then still having to watch commercials. Oh, wait...
Yeah! It's like spending $8.00 on a movie ticket and then having to watch commercials on the big screen before the show.
Just installed Flip4Mac from the Microsoft download page, and while it works, Safari now crashes if I switch tabs or navigate away from the page after playing a clip.
Yeah, well I just installed it an went to comedycentral to view some Daily Show clips. Every clip I tried to watch told me the URL was invalid. I was able to do it before with Media Player- although it always hung up halfway through and only played the audio. I was hoping that finally my dilemma of crappy playback would be solved, but apparently not.
You don't realize how much DVDs suck until you see them on a good monitor.
Boy, you got that right. I have heard people claim how much better DVD is than VHS- but a high quality VHS tape is better (the first few times you view it). Anyone who has ever watched a sunrise/sunset on a DVD will notice how crummy the quality really is. The lack of subtlety in the colors is quite striking. It ends up looking like a bunch of thick bands of colors one after another. I wonder is this from the compression or what?
Yeah, it was supposed to be a funny reference to the WMF issue, but I guess it was too subtle. Oh well.
Microsoft branded players actually have a feature that will enable a music file to execute code if it produces an error during play.
Yes, Microsoft has the desktop market, but they are too clumsy to see this through. Music purchasing requries a finesse that they do not have. Apple has made its mark in the content delievery medium. It goes beyond PC applications into an ease of use, integrated delivery system. I predict this to be DOA. Savvy people won't put up with the hoops they have to jump through to get their content.
Mao's body count is around 77 million dead
Article: ...government considers to be detrimental to society
Seriously, the most detrimental thing to Chinese society is the actions of its government.
Now, before the internet, you would have to be familiar with librarys and card catalogs -- learning how to use those efficiently would have been of much greater value than memorizing a bunch of discrete facts.
But of course you have to trust the methods by which you get that info. E. g. Google is now in a position where they will sorely be tempted to bend their results toward commercial interests. Hopefully, they will not give in. However, even having said that, who is to say their results provide the most relevant information to the topic you are searching? The public library card catalog and a good librarian are likely a better source of knowledge, albeit a slower one.
Given your (valid) premise, we must not only learn to use the technology of search, but we must also learn to filter the results wisely- which is difficult and I'm not even sure how one would go about checking it. Any ideas?
...why Mr. Narwhale knew that Buddy was leaving.
Jesus didn't sacrifice his own life so that others could live. Jesus was resurrected and continues to live. So in reality he sacrified nothing other than having to endure being human for a while like the rest of us.
That may be your belief, but the generally accepted doctrine was that Jesus took upon himself the wrath of God for each person on Earth. In essence, going to hell for each person. The reason he could do it in a finite amount of time is because he was God, and God is infinite. I've heard it described as: emptying a lake with a glass takes a long time, but if you dump the lake into an empty lake, it goes all at once.
So Jesus did experience the punishment for guilt, but because he is God he can return from it. That makes it no less of punishment in volume. Anyway, that's the logic of it.
Maybe we just don't see anything just or right about sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty
Er, maybe the idea of someone sacrificing their own life so another or others may live is noble. Are you saying you would rather God punish the guilty instead of saving them? Then you definitely have a problem with Christianity. Christianity itself admits that it is an offensive message that will really annoy people because it says that everyone is guilty.
Of course, for those who consider themselves guilty, it is a welcome relief to be forgiven by their creator. It is interesting to note that Jesus was never angry at the "sinners" but he was very angry with the Pharisees who believed they were not guilty.
Why is First Contact on the list at all. It had to have one of the most hard to believe premises of all space movie history. One guy by himself, in a post-apocalypse world, builds a warp drive spaceship and says he did it to get chicks!? That has got to be one of the dumbest subplots in recent memory. I'm sorry, I just could not suspend disbelief for that one. Oh, and I felt that the Queen Borg idea, while clever, pretty much ruined the original Borg concept entirely. I was entertained by the movie to a degree, but it's not on my top 10.
Empire Strikes Back was also the best Star Wars movie IMHO.
I found this new book on Amazon: "Men are base-21 and women are base-20
Let's just all switch to binary. There's only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
From the article: Cinecast movie review show was one of the site's featured offerings. The exposure...sent their show...up the iTunes' list of the top 100 podcasts, peaking at No. 13... Then Roger Ebert showed up...Within a few short days, Ebert & Roeper climbed to No. 2, while Cinecast dropped to 72.
I don't know if a direct connection can be made here. It's more likely that Cinecast got an initial bump from the first downloads and then only a percentage of people decided to keep with it. Same with Ebert. It is likely that it will also drop off after the initial first downloads.
Having said that though, a lot of indie podcasts, even the top ones, suffer from a distinct lack of professionalism. I don't mean just lack of a radio voice or something like that, I mean stuff like loooong intros and spending literally half the show talking about how you can contact the show. There's a real lack of understanding about how to keep people interested. A lot are good though, but to keep up with mainstream media, indicasts are going to have to minimize the boring stuff.
It's still got overpriced crappy fruit and vegetables and an awful selection of everything at any time of the day though
Agreed. Which makes the point of the article moot in my opinion. Sanesbury's was better, but it was further away from me so I ended up at the Tesco more often than I would like.