There are some simple rules recognized in the law about religious clubs in schools. If (a) the school receives federal funds or is a public secondary school and (b) the school allows any other clubs, then it must allow religious clubs.
In Garnett v. Renton School Dist. No. 403, a Federal Court of Appeals ruled that these rules must be complied with even if the state constitution says otherwise.
"Students are not permitted to pray in schools because schools are fearful that some parent might sue."
They are allowed. The ruling was only that people of authority could not force or pressure prayer. Students are allowed to pray in school all they want.
"Schools are only allowed to teach one 'theory' on the origins of life."
It's simply the only one that is science.
"Students not allowed to have after-school gatherings to discuss/celebrate their religions.."
They are allowed and it's still quite common to do so. It's even common to have official Bible study groups as a school club. These have not been banned or ruled unconstitutional.
"It is exceptionally difficult for members of religious groups to be allowed to gather and proclaim their faith openly--especially aspects of their faith that may be 'offensive' to others. For example--there is a Supreme Court case pending that would make it illegal for anyone (Christians included) to publicly denounce homosexual behavior ---even though most Christians believe it to be sin."
It has not been my experience that there is any difficulty proclaiming ones faith publicly in the United States. It's been my experience that usually when someone claims they had difficulty, they were trying to do something much more.
As for the law making it illegal for anyone to publicly denounce homosexual bahavior, I'm not familiar enough to say anything. I can't rail against it or put my reputation behind it until I've actaully read it. I do wonder if it is actually more specific, such as simply clarifying that, say, following homosexuals around and badgering them does count as harassment. I don't know. I can only say that if it really does broadly make denouncing homosexual bahavior illegal, then it is unconstitutional on several counts.
"While I believe that the intent of the founding fathers was to avoid the problems they had in Europe, and it's 'relgious wars', I do NOT see that they intended to remove relgion from either the Government, nor civilian life."
We agree on civilian life. Absolutely.
"One quote I mentioned in my original posting was given by Jefferson when he was President--the one in which he so eloquently stated that 'No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.. This quote glaringly shows that he certainly did not intend for their to be this 'Wall of Separation'."
I don't know that he ever said that. When I quote a founder, I try to supply a reference so that any reader can find the quote in the origian material and see if it really exists and is true to the meaning in context. I did a quick google and only found people using this quote, but none supplying a reference. (I have just found that I need to be careful with founder quotes because so many have been invented. David Barton is an example of a prolific forger.) But I will give it the benefit of the doubt. Even though I don't know if this particular quote is true, I do know that there are several others (confirmed) that express a similar attude or belief about the imporance of religious belief in the general population.
But I don't think it implies what you think it does. Support of Christianity--even belief that it is necessary for the proper functioning of a nation--has no bearing on whethor it should mix with government.
You will find that the picture the founding fathers had was a bottom up model, where the people had the moral foundation of their religion and that guided them in their pick of representatives, which then put their values into law (those that which are within the bounds of allowable laws). They were explicit, though, that religion could have no more influence on governent than that (which is already massive influence).
It does follow that government and religion should mix. Further, you don't need to deduce his position on the "wall of seperation" when he explicitly gives it several times. There should be a tall and wide wall that is strongly guarded.
You need to understand that the wall is as much for the defense of Christianity as anything else! By leaving religion to its own sphere, as untouched by government as possible, religions are free to supply the moral foundation the founders believed necessary, while at the same time keeping the possibility of government/church corruption much less likely and leaving matters of faith to individual people, not the power of government.
I think they had a good idea. But even if you don't like what they did, that is what they did.
I was just checking up after a few hours to see if any of my posts had any replies when I reread your post. I'm afriad I didn't read it carefully enough the first time.
You said, "prove to me that mass can be made of nothing without help from an outside source" and I read it that as "life", instead. I just assumed that since it's so common for people to confuse "origin of species" with "origin of life" that this is what you had done.
So, to speak to your real comment: not only does evolution say nothing about the origin of the first living thing, it's outright absurd to think it has anything to do with the origin of mass (and I guess, by necessity, the universe). Someone put this flawed idea into your head and I'd like to know that person's name or position. Whomever did is in need of correcting.
Darwin's theory of evolution is extremely limited. 1) Life must already exist. 2) It must already reproduce in some reliable but slightly lossy way (i.e., it's traits must he heritable and variable) 3) These traits must be passed into the next generation in some ratio other than what they previously were (traits leading to differing rates of reproduction or death, etc. become more or less common in a species in response to some pressure)
And this is it. No more; no less. It's been demonstrated many times over that each of these points is true of life on earth and that together they eventually lead to large changes, even the creation of new species. Yes, speciation has been observed several times.
It should be obvious that this has nothing to do with the origin of mass, the universe, or any other cosmic thing.
Further, just in case... 1) The science that does attempt to explain the origin of life is called abiogenesis. This is not part of evolution. You can see above that the mechinism of evolution assumes this creation has already taken place. Abiogenesis is a new field and nothing yet is firm enough to be called fact, or even theory.
The Miller experiment (in wich simple amino acids were created in a lab) is often found in textbooks, but not as proof of abiogenesis. It is only intended to show that extremely simple (if even non-historical) conditions can give rise to central building blocks of life. It only shows that the idea is not absurd, but in fact (in a way) somewhat reasonable.
Currently, there are many guesses as to how life originally began. None are certain and none are tought as fact. But evidence has shown us that there is no great leap from nonliving to living. Any virus is proof of the vast gray area between the two.
2) The scientific theory that explains the origin of matter is the big bang. Again, looking that how evolution works above, we see that they share nothing in common. Like the theory of evolution, there is a great deal of evidence and many confirmed predictions. Many people claim to have a simple refutation, but upon careful inspection, they are full of shit.
It's commonly believed that science can't talk about what came before the singularity [the thing that expanded into the vast energy cloud that would become the first atoms (because of cooling), then gas clouds (because of gravity), then stars (gravity again), then planets (again gravity), then us (evolution!)]. Some like to think God was behind it. Feel free to think so.
Even further, I wish you would take a critical look at intelligent design. Some don't like the implications of science, but you simply can't accept the methodology or claims of the intelligent design proponents.
My specialty is Computer Science and when I first saw the claims about information theory and the "no free lunch" theorem, I could just shake my head. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. They were just so... obviously bullshit to anyone familiar with the subject matter. Biologists say they've had the same experience.
There is a way to preserve your faith. Just as God doesn't side with you--you side with him; the facts shouldn't side with your preconceptions. You must side with the facts. It's not at all uncommon to believe in Christianity and evolution at the same time.
I've seen science philosophized into atheism in pop-science, yes.
But I've also seen quite a few textbooks and there has been nothing like that in any of them. I have also seen this accusation before--and I've witnessed the lack of supporting evidence for it.
Feel free to make this iteration different by offering a specific offending textbook. If you can find one that really does this, I'll oppose it with you.... Only, I doubt that you can.
"The so-called 'wall of separation' that was derived in the 1940's from a Supreme Court decision. The problem with this is that it comes from a LETTER written by then President Jefferson to a baptist group in CT when they wrote him to ask for intervention by the government in a religious matter."
You make it sound like this interpretation is based on a single letter. It's actually based on numerous documents and precedents. Most importantly, the writings of Madison, who was co-chair of the committee that wrote the first amendment. It was his wording that was chosen. Jefferson really only inspired it.
Interestingly, though, both Jefferson and Madison actively looked for cases for SCOTUS that would be precedents on these issues. They hoped to enshrine a wall of seperation by example.
The obligatory long list of quotes:
Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. -- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. -- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
The civil government... functions with complete success... by the total separation of the Church from the State. -- James Madison, 1819, Writings
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. -- James Madison
The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion... -- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. -- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies"
And it goes on and on... There are simply volumes of opinions by many founders on the meaning of the first amendment. And it's consistantly stressed that religion (not just church, as the oft-quoted phrase says) and government should never have anything to do with one another, even in minor matters.
As far as the rift... first, it's not just between believers and nonbelievers. It's mostly between those who want to stay true to the intent and wording of the constitution (who are mostly Christians) and the group of Christians that aren't happy with their values being abstracted into laws and that want their beliefs officially and explicitly reflected in government institutions. I can only say that the latter group are playing a game that endangers all parties.
Second, I see your point. This has been such as source of conflict. But the founders wanted to avoid the bloodshed of European wars of religion. I think modern Europe is only free of so much conflict because there are so many atheists that nobody really cares enough about these things to start a fight. In comparison, we are so much more religious in the US. Perhaps we inherited the least violent and most religion friendly system. Perhaps, it could have been much worse? I'd be interested in your opinion.
If someone can prove to me that mass can be made of nothing without help from an outside source, I will believe evolution. Until then I side with intellegent design.
Good news! Evolution doesn't say life came from nothing. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all about where life came from. God could have done it for all evolution cares.
Nature works with quanta. Computers work with their own discrete chunks. Both make shades of gray by what is basically a trick.
Why don't you actually engage these the ideas with evidence or arguments instead of these empty assertions. I'm sure you can do it.//pats FLAGGR on the head
We did the same things in the US in the 70s as those Russians did. From what I remember, the blood was not removed. I assume there are even more differences than that between the old methods and the new.
I love how faster speeds enable new things, but the one thing that bugs me is how the old software gets upgraded and expands to fill all the new clocks and MBs but buys you minimal actual improvement in return.
I know, change is impossible... I complain anyway.
P.S. I really should note--and make very clear--that I'm not trying to make an argument from ignorance and I don't doubt everything Biblical--John the Baptist is the first thing to comes to mind and many people, places and events appear to have been real--but the pattern of Biblical historicity (in my opinion) seems to be that it's the mundane that are supported by evidence, not the spectacular.
"So now it's my turn to call shenanigans. Produce your reasoning why you believe those records are false."
Whoah, nelly! I just said "produce them", not "and they are all also fakes, just in case you do". I can't assume records are false I don't even know about! I'm expecting that if you've seen evidence of Jesus, it's something I haven't seen.
The information I have come across on the history of Jesus has all been in line with the Wikipedia "Historicity of Jesus". This is essentially that several documents make note of Christians and the general idea that they believe in a Christ; a very small number, such as Josephus, appear to have been forged, still leaving no non-Biblical record of a historical Jesus.
I am open to the idea that there was a historical Jesus and that we might have documentation of such, but I do wonder why evidence of such is so hard to come across (are these Alpha courses magical?) just on the internet for a lax non-scholar. You'd think this is a big thing.
I most often find myself around skeptics, so one thing I can do is report on what they do. You'd think skeptics would be trying to discredit records of Jesus, but instead--like I'm doing--it's mostly just a lot of "You don't have any documents or records at all, do you?"
"There are not extant records in Western Europe: big difference."
We have no records of this shroud that anyone can point to before the 1300's, in Europe or out. Might some exist before that time? Maybe. But we don't have any.
No big difference.
"2D - that is still a puzzle. But it is more of a puzzle if it is art."
I fail to see how. If you were, say, to cover yourself in paint and drape a cloth over yourself, your image would be seriously warped. Your face would be stretched more and more further from the center. It would be hard to recognize as a face. The whole body would suffer from this.
If it's hard for you to imagine (not accusing), just try it.
In order to get an image as is on the shroud it must either be projected or painted. It could not have been caused by physical contact.
"Holy light? Who told you that?"
This is something many people bring up to explain why the image isn't distorted. The idea is that the shroud was flat and the image projected onto it, but it was made flat and the image projected (causing a surface burn) as a result of the resurrection.
"Height of the man. Do you understand plain geometry?"
Yes. It still leaves me clueless what you're trying to say here.
"Three labs tested a bad sample. This is what this whole thread is about!!!"
It's questionable that they did, but what I was pointing out was that the tests didn't just point to it being a fake from 1500 or 900, but right about when all the other evidence points to it being faked. There are several lines of evidence that all fit together, supporting each other--supporting this carbon dating test, specifically.
"As to the authenticity of Shroud of Turin, I personaly have doubts about its authenticity, but I refuse to pass final judgment on the matter as I doubt we will ever have all the facts."
A good attitude. These are some of the facts I've picked up:
* A forger confessed to the Church for having created it. * The history of the shroud is not known before the mid-1300s. * The weave is not like that of Jesus' time. * It's the wrong size and shape according to the Bible. It should be be strips, not one large piece. * It was not supposed to have been draped over the body according to the Bible, but wrapped around. * In order create the undistorted 2D image, it would have to have been suspended flat, not wrapped or draped over a body. * If the image was burned onto the shroud with some holy light, why did the beard burn darker than the skin? * The height of the man shown on the front is different from the height shown on the back. The head is also out of proportion and shown in more detail than the rest of the body. * Three labs in 1988 tested samples selected by the holder of the shroud to be accurate samples all found with 95% confidence it was from 1260-1390, the age which theories already put the forgery or materials.
"Nobody in their right mind can doubt the existence of Jesus."
Lots of people in their right minds do it.
"The Roman Empire records are very clear about not only his existance but also regarding his interactions with the government (well, getting crucified)."
Isn't this the John C. Dvorak that has worked in technology for several decades, making many predictions, talking of supposed trends... and being wrong on almost all of them?
I love what EROS did and have very high hopes for this project, but why the new language? Some Java people (maybe that's why...) already inspired by EROS created (or just 'E'), a capability secure Java based laguage.
Either way, things I like:
*Provable security
*Extremely fine grain, almost fractally self-similar, security
*No need for 'root'
Things I'm not so sure about:
*No filesystem (at least with EROS)
*Not having 'root' is such a change, it's hard for me to understand how someone would take care of a system
"What are you talking about? Are you just making stuff up? What does any of that have to do with evolution?"
He's giving you the parts to evolution and saying that if evolution is false, one of the parts must be false. He's also saying that you can't deny the parts: they're obviously true or have loads of evidence. He said:
The theory that an organisms devolopment is an expression of its genetic material (i.e. You have two hands, two eyes, one nose because of your genes.) + The theory that an organism inherits its genetic material + The theory that the genetic material is mutable (i.e. Mutations, cutting & pasting, copying, translation, virus DNA insertions all happen.) = Evolution
I'd add one more: Selection. (If your mutation makes you vomit 24/7, you most likely not spread your genes. If your mutation makes you better at something important than other folks, your genes will likely spread. I.E. Get rid of the bad, keep the good.)
"Evolution is genetic material changing in a way that's beyond what the genes are pre-programmed to do." and "To give you an example, take twins, both with the same genes - if both sets of genes change in more of less the same way in response to something, that's by definition not evolution."
This makes me think you don't know what genes are. This is nonsense.
"Evolution is totally random, going beyond that to something totally new, and that has never actually been seen."
Evolution does have a big random component (as a generator of new positive, neutral and negative things), but from the beginning--with Darwin--it went beyond that... so, that's not really new.
Selection is the thing that goes beyond just being random, culling things that don't work and leaving things that work very well to spread; bringing order or information to the thing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not a strawman. It's a valid argument form (expressed as a Socratic question) but simply containing a faulty premise.
I'm sorry that I'm also rushed for time.
I did manage to squeeze in some quick research.
There are some simple rules recognized in the law about religious clubs in schools. If (a) the school receives federal funds or is a public secondary school and (b) the school allows any other clubs, then it must allow religious clubs.
In Garnett v. Renton School Dist. No. 403, a Federal Court of Appeals ruled that these rules must be complied with even if the state constitution says otherwise.
"Students are not permitted to pray in schools because schools are fearful that some parent might sue."
They are allowed. The ruling was only that people of authority could not force or pressure prayer. Students are allowed to pray in school all they want.
"Schools are only allowed to teach one 'theory' on the origins of life."
It's simply the only one that is science.
"Students not allowed to have after-school gatherings to discuss/celebrate their religions.."
They are allowed and it's still quite common to do so. It's even common to have official Bible study groups as a school club. These have not been banned or ruled unconstitutional.
Whoops! "It does follow that government and religion should mix." should read "It doesn't follow..."
"It is exceptionally difficult for members of religious groups to be allowed to gather and proclaim their faith openly--especially aspects of their faith that may be 'offensive' to others. For example--there is a Supreme Court case pending that would make it illegal for anyone (Christians included) to publicly denounce homosexual behavior ---even though most Christians believe it to be sin."
It has not been my experience that there is any difficulty proclaiming ones faith publicly in the United States. It's been my experience that usually when someone claims they had difficulty, they were trying to do something much more.
As for the law making it illegal for anyone to publicly denounce homosexual bahavior, I'm not familiar enough to say anything. I can't rail against it or put my reputation behind it until I've actaully read it. I do wonder if it is actually more specific, such as simply clarifying that, say, following homosexuals around and badgering them does count as harassment. I don't know. I can only say that if it really does broadly make denouncing homosexual bahavior illegal, then it is unconstitutional on several counts.
"While I believe that the intent of the founding fathers was to avoid the problems they had in Europe, and it's 'relgious wars', I do NOT see that they intended to remove relgion from either the Government, nor civilian life."
We agree on civilian life. Absolutely.
"One quote I mentioned in my original posting was given by Jefferson when he was President--the one in which he so eloquently stated that 'No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.. This quote glaringly shows that he certainly did not intend for their to be this 'Wall of Separation'."
I don't know that he ever said that. When I quote a founder, I try to supply a reference so that any reader can find the quote in the origian material and see if it really exists and is true to the meaning in context. I did a quick google and only found people using this quote, but none supplying a reference. (I have just found that I need to be careful with founder quotes because so many have been invented. David Barton is an example of a prolific forger.) But I will give it the benefit of the doubt. Even though I don't know if this particular quote is true, I do know that there are several others (confirmed) that express a similar attude or belief about the imporance of religious belief in the general population.
But I don't think it implies what you think it does. Support of Christianity--even belief that it is necessary for the proper functioning of a nation--has no bearing on whethor it should mix with government.
You will find that the picture the founding fathers had was a bottom up model, where the people had the moral foundation of their religion and that guided them in their pick of representatives, which then put their values into law (those that which are within the bounds of allowable laws). They were explicit, though, that religion could have no more influence on governent than that (which is already massive influence).
It does follow that government and religion should mix. Further, you don't need to deduce his position on the "wall of seperation" when he explicitly gives it several times. There should be a tall and wide wall that is strongly guarded.
You need to understand that the wall is as much for the defense of Christianity as anything else! By leaving religion to its own sphere, as untouched by government as possible, religions are free to supply the moral foundation the founders believed necessary, while at the same time keeping the possibility of government/church corruption much less likely and leaving matters of faith to individual people, not the power of government.
I think they had a good idea. But even if you don't like what they did, that is what they did.
I was just checking up after a few hours to see if any of my posts had any replies when I reread your post. I'm afriad I didn't read it carefully enough the first time.
//this post is too long
///good luck
You said, "prove to me that mass can be made of nothing without help from an outside source" and I read it that as "life", instead. I just assumed that since it's so common for people to confuse "origin of species" with "origin of life" that this is what you had done.
So, to speak to your real comment: not only does evolution say nothing about the origin of the first living thing, it's outright absurd to think it has anything to do with the origin of mass (and I guess, by necessity, the universe). Someone put this flawed idea into your head and I'd like to know that person's name or position. Whomever did is in need of correcting.
Darwin's theory of evolution is extremely limited.
1) Life must already exist.
2) It must already reproduce in some reliable but slightly lossy way (i.e., it's traits must he heritable and variable)
3) These traits must be passed into the next generation in some ratio other than what they previously were (traits leading to differing rates of reproduction or death, etc. become more or less common in a species in response to some pressure)
And this is it. No more; no less. It's been demonstrated many times over that each of these points is true of life on earth and that together they eventually lead to large changes, even the creation of new species. Yes, speciation has been observed several times.
It should be obvious that this has nothing to do with the origin of mass, the universe, or any other cosmic thing.
Further, just in case...
1) The science that does attempt to explain the origin of life is called abiogenesis. This is not part of evolution. You can see above that the mechinism of evolution assumes this creation has already taken place. Abiogenesis is a new field and nothing yet is firm enough to be called fact, or even theory.
The Miller experiment (in wich simple amino acids were created in a lab) is often found in textbooks, but not as proof of abiogenesis. It is only intended to show that extremely simple (if even non-historical) conditions can give rise to central building blocks of life. It only shows that the idea is not absurd, but in fact (in a way) somewhat reasonable.
Currently, there are many guesses as to how life originally began. None are certain and none are tought as fact. But evidence has shown us that there is no great leap from nonliving to living. Any virus is proof of the vast gray area between the two.
2) The scientific theory that explains the origin of matter is the big bang. Again, looking that how evolution works above, we see that they share nothing in common. Like the theory of evolution, there is a great deal of evidence and many confirmed predictions. Many people claim to have a simple refutation, but upon careful inspection, they are full of shit.
It's commonly believed that science can't talk about what came before the singularity [the thing that expanded into the vast energy cloud that would become the first atoms (because of cooling), then gas clouds (because of gravity), then stars (gravity again), then planets (again gravity), then us (evolution!)]. Some like to think God was behind it. Feel free to think so.
Even further, I wish you would take a critical look at intelligent design. Some don't like the implications of science, but you simply can't accept the methodology or claims of the intelligent design proponents.
My specialty is Computer Science and when I first saw the claims about information theory and the "no free lunch" theorem, I could just shake my head. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. They were just so... obviously bullshit to anyone familiar with the subject matter. Biologists say they've had the same experience.
There is a way to preserve your faith. Just as God doesn't side with you--you side with him; the facts shouldn't side with your preconceptions. You must side with the facts. It's not at all uncommon to believe in Christianity and evolution at the same time.
I've seen science philosophized into atheism in pop-science, yes.
... Only, I doubt that you can.
But I've also seen quite a few textbooks and there has been nothing like that in any of them. I have also seen this accusation before--and I've witnessed the lack of supporting evidence for it.
Feel free to make this iteration different by offering a specific offending textbook. If you can find one that really does this, I'll oppose it with you.
"The so-called 'wall of separation' that was derived in the 1940's from a Supreme Court decision. The problem with this is that it comes from a LETTER written by then President Jefferson to a baptist group in CT when they wrote him to ask for intervention by the government in a religious matter."
... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
...
You make it sound like this interpretation is based on a single letter. It's actually based on numerous documents and precedents. Most importantly, the writings of Madison, who was co-chair of the committee that wrote the first amendment. It was his wording that was chosen. Jefferson really only inspired it.
Interestingly, though, both Jefferson and Madison actively looked for cases for SCOTUS that would be precedents on these issues. They hoped to enshrine a wall of seperation by example.
The obligatory long list of quotes:
Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
The civil government
-- James Madison, 1819, Writings
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
-- James Madison
The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion
-- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.
-- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies"
And it goes on and on... There are simply volumes of opinions by many founders on the meaning of the first amendment. And it's consistantly stressed that religion (not just church, as the oft-quoted phrase says) and government should never have anything to do with one another, even in minor matters.
As far as the rift... first, it's not just between believers and nonbelievers. It's mostly between those who want to stay true to the intent and wording of the constitution (who are mostly Christians) and the group of Christians that aren't happy with their values being abstracted into laws and that want their beliefs officially and explicitly reflected in government institutions. I can only say that the latter group are playing a game that endangers all parties.
Second, I see your point. This has been such as source of conflict. But the founders wanted to avoid the bloodshed of European wars of religion. I think modern Europe is only free of so much conflict because there are so many atheists that nobody really cares enough about these things to start a fight. In comparison, we are so much more religious in the US. Perhaps we inherited the least violent and most religion friendly system. Perhaps, it could have been much worse? I'd be interested in your opinion.
If someone can prove to me that mass can be made of nothing without help from an outside source, I will believe evolution. Until then I side with intellegent design.
Good news! Evolution doesn't say life came from nothing. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all about where life came from. God could have done it for all evolution cares.
You may now believe in evolution.
"I really never quite understood why the masses didn't follow."
I would guess the reason why not everyone is using a "Happy Hacker" keyboard is because they're priced between $70 and $120.
If you got yours for less, please, help us all follow your lead.
Nature works with quanta. Computers work with their own discrete chunks. Both make shades of gray by what is basically a trick.
//pats FLAGGR on the head
Why don't you actually engage these the ideas with evidence or arguments instead of these empty assertions. I'm sure you can do it.
We did the same things in the US in the 70s as those Russians did. From what I remember, the blood was not removed. I assume there are even more differences than that between the old methods and the new.
I'm surprised there are no Ayn Rand books in the list.
She made almost no impact on philosophy, culture or history and the quality of her work was lacking. Sorry, but you shouldn't surprised.
"There is just one thing that bugs me" ...
I love how faster speeds enable new things, but the one thing that bugs me is how the old software gets upgraded and expands to fill all the new clocks and MBs but buys you minimal actual improvement in return.
I know, change is impossible... I complain anyway.
P.S. I really should note--and make very clear--that I'm not trying to make an argument from ignorance and I don't doubt everything Biblical--John the Baptist is the first thing to comes to mind and many people, places and events appear to have been real--but the pattern of Biblical historicity (in my opinion) seems to be that it's the mundane that are supported by evidence, not the spectacular.
"So now it's my turn to call shenanigans. Produce your reasoning why you believe those records are false."
u s_ Christ
Whoah, nelly! I just said "produce them", not "and they are all also fakes, just in case you do". I can't assume records are false I don't even know about! I'm expecting that if you've seen evidence of Jesus, it's something I haven't seen.
The information I have come across on the history of Jesus has all been in line with the Wikipedia "Historicity of Jesus". This is essentially that several documents make note of Christians and the general idea that they believe in a Christ; a very small number, such as Josephus, appear to have been forged, still leaving no non-Biblical record of a historical Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jes
I am open to the idea that there was a historical Jesus and that we might have documentation of such, but I do wonder why evidence of such is so hard to come across (are these Alpha courses magical?) just on the internet for a lax non-scholar. You'd think this is a big thing.
I most often find myself around skeptics, so one thing I can do is report on what they do. You'd think skeptics would be trying to discredit records of Jesus, but instead--like I'm doing--it's mostly just a lot of "You don't have any documents or records at all, do you?"
Ho, hum.
"There are not extant records in Western Europe: big difference."
We have no records of this shroud that anyone can point to before the 1300's, in Europe or out. Might some exist before that time? Maybe. But we don't have any.
No big difference.
"2D - that is still a puzzle. But it is more of a puzzle if it is art."
I fail to see how. If you were, say, to cover yourself in paint and drape a cloth over yourself, your image would be seriously warped. Your face would be stretched more and more further from the center. It would be hard to recognize as a face. The whole body would suffer from this.
If it's hard for you to imagine (not accusing), just try it.
In order to get an image as is on the shroud it must either be projected or painted. It could not have been caused by physical contact.
"Holy light? Who told you that?"
This is something many people bring up to explain why the image isn't distorted. The idea is that the shroud was flat and the image projected onto it, but it was made flat and the image projected (causing a surface burn) as a result of the resurrection.
"Height of the man. Do you understand plain geometry?"
Yes. It still leaves me clueless what you're trying to say here.
"Three labs tested a bad sample. This is what this whole thread is about!!!"
It's questionable that they did, but what I was pointing out was that the tests didn't just point to it being a fake from 1500 or 900, but right about when all the other evidence points to it being faked. There are several lines of evidence that all fit together, supporting each other--supporting this carbon dating test, specifically.
"As to the authenticity of Shroud of Turin, I personaly have doubts about its authenticity, but I refuse to pass final judgment on the matter as I doubt we will ever have all the facts."
A good attitude. These are some of the facts I've picked up:
* A forger confessed to the Church for having created it.
* The history of the shroud is not known before the mid-1300s.
* The weave is not like that of Jesus' time.
* It's the wrong size and shape according to the Bible. It should be be strips, not one large piece.
* It was not supposed to have been draped over the body according to the Bible, but wrapped around.
* In order create the undistorted 2D image, it would have to have been suspended flat, not wrapped or draped over a body.
* If the image was burned onto the shroud with some holy light, why did the beard burn darker than the skin?
* The height of the man shown on the front is different from the height shown on the back. The head is also out of proportion and shown in more detail than the rest of the body.
* Three labs in 1988 tested samples selected by the holder of the shroud to be accurate samples all found with 95% confidence it was from 1260-1390, the age which theories already put the forgery or materials.
I don't need any more to conclude it's a fake.
"Nobody in their right mind can doubt the existence of Jesus."
Lots of people in their right minds do it.
"The Roman Empire records are very clear about not only his existance but also regarding his interactions with the government (well, getting crucified)."
I call shenanigans. Produce these records.
Isn't this the John C. Dvorak that has worked in technology for several decades, making many predictions, talking of supposed trends... and being wrong on almost all of them?
"EROS created (or just 'E')"
//Use preview. Use preview.
Ack! It killed my "E-Lang (or just 'E')" link.
I love what EROS did and have very high hopes for this project, but why the new language? Some Java people (maybe that's why...) already inspired by EROS created (or just 'E'), a capability secure Java based laguage.
Either way, things I like:
*Provable security
*Extremely fine grain, almost fractally self-similar, security
*No need for 'root'
Things I'm not so sure about:
*No filesystem (at least with EROS)
*Not having 'root' is such a change, it's hard for me to understand how someone would take care of a system
"Ironically, the image on that page leads me to believe this keyboard is made for small childrem"
It would make a good KB for a first time typists, maybe? It looks almost like it was designed to start good typing habbits:
* The arrow keys are in the middle, keeping fingers from one hand finding their way onto the other's keys. (I do this all the time.)
* There are all sorts of keys where the wrists might rest.
"Embryonic Stem Cells don't work"
And people have been trying as hard as hell to prove other stem cells work as well because...?
"What are you talking about? Are you just making stuff up? What does any of that have to do with evolution?"
He's giving you the parts to evolution and saying that if evolution is false, one of the parts must be false. He's also saying that you can't deny the parts: they're obviously true or have loads of evidence. He said:
The theory that an organisms devolopment is an expression of its genetic material (i.e. You have two hands, two eyes, one nose because of your genes.) + The theory that an organism inherits its genetic material + The theory that the genetic material is mutable (i.e. Mutations, cutting & pasting, copying, translation, virus DNA insertions all happen.) = Evolution
I'd add one more: Selection. (If your mutation makes you vomit 24/7, you most likely not spread your genes. If your mutation makes you better at something important than other folks, your genes will likely spread. I.E. Get rid of the bad, keep the good.)
"Evolution is genetic material changing in a way that's beyond what the genes are pre-programmed to do." and "To give you an example, take twins, both with the same genes - if both sets of genes change in more of less the same way in response to something, that's by definition not evolution."
This makes me think you don't know what genes are. This is nonsense.
"Evolution is totally random, going beyond that to something totally new, and that has never actually been seen."
Evolution does have a big random component (as a generator of new positive, neutral and negative things), but from the beginning--with Darwin--it went beyond that... so, that's not really new.
Selection is the thing that goes beyond just being random, culling things that don't work and leaving things that work very well to spread; bringing order or information to the thing.