If the Bible is so accurate in these little things, it makes me take what it says about God, life, the state of humanity, and how we should live our lives very seriously.
The Bible is also very INaccurate about a lot of things. Why do you count the hits and forget the misses?
It also explains how our universe came into being.
Except it doesn't. "God did it" doesn't really explain anything.
Evolution cannot explain where the matter and energy came from in the first place.
Evolution doesn't have to, because that's not what evolution is about.
If the universe is run by collective consciousness or random chance, how could such an unchanging and perfect system come into being?
How do you define "perfection" when it comes to universes? How do you know our universe is "perfect" without something else to compare it against? And who says it's unchanging? It's not.
Call me when string theorists make a testable prediction.
They have. The problem is that they haven't made a testable prediction yet that's unique to string theory. In other words, at the moment it predicts things as well as the current model, but nothing yet beyond that.
"Sounds similar to N.T. Wright's take on the end of Mark. He suggests that the abrupt ending is meant to put the onus back on the reader/listener: "Christ is risen: now over to you. What are you going to do about it?""
Well, the preferred method in these cases is decapitation or destruction of the brain, followed by burning of the remains. More details can be found in this reference manual.
He's Bill Clinton with far less experience, far less gravitas, and a better tan.
Well, Bill Clinton's entire elected experience before becoming President was 10 years as governor (of Arkansas), and IMO Obama has more gravitas than Clinton could ever conjure. You're right about the tan though.
Because the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", trumping any other law. Therefore, if the Congress passed a law and the President signed it, it's still illegal if it's unconstitutional.
300 people found with machine guns, bombs, suicide vests, trying to murder civilians and US troops and captured instead of killed. Not enough evidence for you?
No, because we only have the military's word on the alleged evidence.
But hell, why not get rid of the courts altogether, because anyone the cops say is a criminal is automatically guilty, right?
FACT - The DNC ASKED candidates to withdraw their name. Some obliged. Others did not.
Fact - Hillary Clinton signed a pledge that said: "THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC."
Anyone who wants to write an app an know that it will work on any distro? Anyone who wants to be able to sit down with an unfamiliar app and be able to expect consistent behavior with other apps? Anyone who just want to use the computer and not have to futz around with settings?
No, the scouring of the shire would have been terrible in the movie. You can't have the epic climax of 9+ hours worth of film... and then start what would have probably been ANOTHER 20+ minute subplot revolving largely around the word "ruffian".
Hell, I even think it feels out of place in the book.
For the curious, the rest of the paragraph reads: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Absent acknowledgement of probability, there is no reason that, say, a dog could not mutate into your pegasus in a single generation,
This is completely wrong. The pegasus offspring would either die in the womb or the mother would die during pregnancy. You can't get massive changes like that in a single generation.
DNA comparisons, morphological comparisons, fossil history, lab experiments on fast-breeding species, long term historical observations of species in nature.
Speed limits are a political thing mostly. You can do 250mph on German Autobahns in a good modern car.
Um. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of cars you can buy today that can do 250mph and have some fingers left over. I can only think of two offhand, the Bugatti Veyron and the Koenigsegg CCXR, and both of those cost fantastic amounts of money. Are you sure you're not getting your miles confused with your kilometers?
Slashdot Mirror
What's a quarter of infinity?
"in", "fi", "ni", or "ty", depending on the value of the fine structure constant.
If the Bible is so accurate in these little things, it makes me take what it says about God, life, the state of humanity, and how we should live our lives very seriously.
The Bible is also very INaccurate about a lot of things. Why do you count the hits and forget the misses?
It also explains how our universe came into being.
Except it doesn't. "God did it" doesn't really explain anything.
Evolution cannot explain where the matter and energy came from in the first place.
Evolution doesn't have to, because that's not what evolution is about.
If the universe is run by collective consciousness or random chance, how could such an unchanging and perfect system come into being?
How do you define "perfection" when it comes to universes? How do you know our universe is "perfect" without something else to compare it against? And who says it's unchanging? It's not.
Call me when string theorists make a testable prediction.
They have. The problem is that they haven't made a testable prediction yet that's unique to string theory. In other words, at the moment it predicts things as well as the current model, but nothing yet beyond that.
"Sounds similar to N.T. Wright's take on the end of Mark. He suggests that the abrupt ending is meant to put the onus back on the reader/listener: "Christ is risen: now over to you. What are you going to do about it?""
Well, the preferred method in these cases is decapitation or destruction of the brain, followed by burning of the remains. More details can be found in this reference manual.
Beyond telecom immunity this bill guts the FISA court and gives the Executive carte blanche to wiretap without warrants or judicial oversight.
Um, no it doesn't.
He voted for a unconstitutional law. Period.
Out of curiosity, which part do you think is unconstitutional?
Therefore, I will abstain from voting and let the bigger liar win! I trust it will be McCain
Yeah, because that'll show 'em.
He's Bill Clinton with far less experience, far less gravitas, and a better tan.
Well, Bill Clinton's entire elected experience before becoming President was 10 years as governor (of Arkansas), and IMO Obama has more gravitas than Clinton could ever conjure. You're right about the tan though.
Yes indeed, because single-issue voting is completely logical.
Because the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", trumping any other law. Therefore, if the Congress passed a law and the President signed it, it's still illegal if it's unconstitutional.
What part of the Constitution was FDR upholding when he interred over 100,000 citizens against their will?
None, actually. That was pretty appalling.
Oh, wait, you mean the Nazis and North Koreans and VC never got trials or habeas corpus?
Oh, wait, you mean the Nazis and North Koreans and VC were never being held indefinitely under US jurisdiction?
And we didn't need warrants to wiretap them?
And they weren't living here? And didn't have phones?
300 people found with machine guns, bombs, suicide vests, trying to murder civilians and US troops and captured instead of killed. Not enough evidence for you?
No, because we only have the military's word on the alleged evidence.
But hell, why not get rid of the courts altogether, because anyone the cops say is a criminal is automatically guilty, right?
Nah, Ron Paul still holds office. :)
Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).
Except that Pennsylvania will probably go blue anyway and Obama is polling surprisingly well in Ohio.
while the democrats chose the most polarizing
Hang on. If you think Obama is more polarizing than Clinton, then you must be posting from a parallel universe.
Let's see...I have a choice between an Ivy League lawyer, married to another Ivy League lawyer
I dunno, I think it would be nice to have a President who could argue a Constitutional case.
who basically thinks I'm a depressed, oppressed, poor, and underprivileged person because I don't live on the east coast or the west coast...
Yeah, that's exactly what he said... only not.
FACT - The DNC ASKED candidates to withdraw their name. Some obliged. Others did not.
Fact - Hillary Clinton signed a pledge that said:
"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC."
Note the "or participate" part.
Who cares about having a single UI?
I dunno...
Anyone who wants to write an app an know that it will work on any distro?
Anyone who wants to be able to sit down with an unfamiliar app and be able to expect consistent behavior with other apps?
Anyone who just want to use the computer and not have to futz around with settings?
3. Skip over Genesis chapter 2, which disagrees with Genesis chapter 1 :)
How in the hell can you have ROTK without Scouring of the shire?
:)
Very easily because it adds nothing to the main story. It's OK in the books (just), but it wouldn't work in a movie.
My god, its like the best part.
It's like the best part, only it isn't.
because its all walking from here to there really.
Wait, you think the movies are all walking from here the there? My God. You need to read the books more closely.
No, the scouring of the shire would have been terrible in the movie. You can't have the epic climax of 9+ hours worth of film... and then start what would have probably been ANOTHER 20+ minute subplot revolving largely around the word "ruffian".
Hell, I even think it feels out of place in the book.
Nice troll.
For the curious, the rest of the paragraph reads:
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Absent acknowledgement of probability, there is no reason that, say, a dog could not mutate into your pegasus in a single generation,
This is completely wrong. The pegasus offspring would either die in the womb or the mother would die during pregnancy. You can't get massive changes like that in a single generation.
test evolution how?
DNA comparisons, morphological comparisons, fossil history, lab experiments on fast-breeding species, long term historical observations of species in nature.
evolution isn't really very good science.
Look at how wrong you are.
it is speculation based on observation.
In a way, that's all science in a nutshell.
Speed limits are a political thing mostly. You can do 250mph on German Autobahns in a good modern car.
Um. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of cars you can buy today that can do 250mph and have some fingers left over. I can only think of two offhand, the Bugatti Veyron and the Koenigsegg CCXR, and both of those cost fantastic amounts of money. Are you sure you're not getting your miles confused with your kilometers?