Actually what I think ought to be pointed out is not just size and heat issues, but the fact that it is 64bits and still fully compatible with x86 as it stands today... So when 64bit applications are in mass production (there's already efforts by M$, the Linux community and I'm guessing the *BSD community too) they'll naturally be faster & more efficient than the current instruction set... I mean you can now manipulate 64bits at one time rather than just 32bits, and all without touching an MMX &/or SSE register!
ya, that is a frightening thought... the only
way to keep such a computer from ever harming
anyone, besides embedding code in a ROM in
the CPU that can't be circumvented, is to
disconnect any modems, NICs, etc... and hope
it has no way of sending a signal back thru
the electrical outlet powering the thing,
nor thru some radio waves or something... but still, it seems like it'd be virtually impossible to fully ensure that it couldn't decide to TRY to wipe us all out (even though i don't think it'd ever be able to succeed 100% in total genocide)!
and yet, what science has only proved in the last few centuries, was already recorded in the Bible 1000 or so years before... see the book of Isaiah about "circle of the earth" and so forth...
When you read from a hard disk, errors aren't that a big a deal as far as skipping because you can just read/write raw sectors and let software take a crack it fixing it... My understanding of this article is that you can't just read the sectors into memory from the CD-ROM, but that the CD-ROM has to be particular about making sure it's error corrected... Is that really the case? I mean I would think there's a way to force it to just read it, let software do its thing & move on... in which case, I'm sure algorithms could be written to error correct it...
So ultimately... how in the world do you copy protect it?
Now granted most of the architecture for x86 is old and needs to eventually die off, but AMD's job for making the 64bit processors is *NOT* to try and re-engineer the x86 architecture, otherwise it wouldn't be the first 64bit x86 processor, it would be a new 64bit architecture like Itanium... the whole idea was to extend the capabilities of x86 which honestly is the MOST MARKETABLE processor for home/business use, and somewhat for the server market too! So to be honest, AMD made a brilliant move, that Intel is shying away from, in that they took something old and obselete and they improved it, just like they've done a few other times! Considering this is a free opinion, don't rant and rave about it, you got your money's worth if you don't like it!:)
Ok, I've heard that one and/or/not gate is
like 4-5 molecules in today's chips... How
much smaller would a buckyball bit be than
a regular J-K, T, D, whatever flip-flop ?
Ok, obviously I left an important couple of details... oops! I am planning to use a 700MB CD and I have more tracks to rip & encode too though... and well 22MB is not enough for about 10+ tracks more.
I've been making a ton of oggs from ripped
audio tracks from my own CD collection,
currently taking 678MB on my D: partition.
I kept wondering about perhaps another
format that was smaller or some way I
could compress the oggs a little bit, but
still be able to put them on a CD and not
have to decompress them every time I wanted
to hear one.
So does anyone know how much better
compression it offers now? If I could
get rid of another 50MB by slightly
smaller ogg files (about ~0.3MB/ogg)
that would be great! As long as sonique
will still play them...
1) Forget that experiment... can you say 100% that light cannot be sped up whatsoever by nature? The experiment is just an example, we don't know everything contained in the universe to know when it is slowed down or sped up, so you can't base ages & scientific facts on it, as much as many would probably like to.
3) How do you know it is accurate for older items? Because they say the halflife is such & such time & therefore no matter what chemistry & physics & everything else happens to a painting, fossil, etc... we know carbon dating must be correct! how? you have no control over nature from the past & only limited control on it today. The dating process makes too many assumptions that it can't make because it wasn't there to watch all the environmental changes on the item. And saying we had ice age, then stone age, then this age & that still doesn't tell you the exact happenings to each specific artifact, nor can it ever!
maybe the reason we say "God did it" and actually present PLENTY of proof, that is USUALLY ignored by those convinced by their own religion of evolutionary science or big bang-ism, is because so-called science with such theories as evolution & the big-bang offer plenty more questions than answers...
One example... someone on the earlier cloning article responded to one of my posts talking about the Big Bang and Big Crunch which says, if I'm not mistaken, that the universe started from a small proton (or whatever small "thingie") and exploded and at some point it can't go further, hence the Big Crunch, start all over, and repeat for eternity. So this offers 2 possibilities for the universe that must be considered... The first says the universe is 'open' and therefore the universe could expand forever and Big Bang/Big Crunch doesn't happen, hence universe isn't eternal, something must come before, WHAT CAME BEFORE? (one of those questions that pops up that Big Bang can't explain away). The 2nd then is that the universe is a 'closed' system (the more popular of the 2 by Big Bang/Big Crunch supporters apparently) and so Big Bang/Big Crunch could conceivably happen, end of story. The 2nd brings up 2 questions then... 1) How in the world do you prove that? We can only use readings from the past few 100 years, that is minute if the universe is billions of years old, and proves nothing. 2) What is outside the closed universe? Absolutely nothing? Explain that one to me without God in the equation. More universe? Well then the closed walls must be farther out if more universe exists outside. So after you find the farthest outer walls in such a case, you still have to explain either what's outside or if it truly a closed universe then if you're always finding new outer limits!
How about the evidence (it was in National Geographic a 2-3 decades ago) that was hushed up about a Chinese fishing freighter off the coast of China or Japan or something that caught something large in their nets and it was bleeding (a general sign it hasn't been dead for too long:) and it turned out to be a plesiosaur (aka - a dinosaur species) ? Or can we silently ignore this evidence because it happens to combat the theories that dinosaurs are totally extinct either by comets or whatever else someone can dream up?
Ok, then let's consider this... How in the world did these people with their lack of scientific knowledge (we're talking a few 1000 years B.C. here when it first started) decide they should circumcize a child at all? I mean the people would be well aware of what would hurt a child and so if just any ol' person said "Hey, go cut your child like this" they'd think the person off their rocker and wonder what advantage that could possibly have. The advantage (and this I remember hearing in a high school health class a few years ago) is that there's A LOT of bacteria in that area, and while it won't kill anyone not to have it removed, removing the bacteria from that area can be beneficial too. Now how can you try to explain away someone just experimenting on cutting up babies to see if it would help their healt in a time when technology (including medical science) was not anywhere close to what it is today?
Before I scoot to bed... the original word used there in Hebrew for 'day' means a LITERAL 24HOUR PERIOD OF TIME, not billions of years. If you'd like to see what I mean, you can grab a copy of Strong's Concordance and look up 'day' in Genesis.
1. Yep, the ever so popular way for us to try & prove the universe is billions of years old or so... use things like stars and *assume* that their light is travelling the exact same speed throughout, or perhaps allow for some margin of error just for scientists to TRY to cover themselves.
Have we not seen experiments in the last year or 2 about slowing light a lot or speeding it up a lot? Are you going to say that can only be done in a lab? "Oh, but it's rare." So? Are you saying we know the universe so well to know what all the light goes through to reach earth & conclude the age that way?
"Ok, but the Bible can't account for such things & we still know it would take millions of years even with light being sped up by an incredible amount!" How could the Bible not account for it? If you were God, and you were creating the universe with stars to rule over the day & night to help in sea navigation & as part of the signs of seasons too, and of course, being all-powerful to create the laws of science, would it be so hard for you to make light from these stars already appear on earth, so that the light we see from them now is really only a few 1000 years old for even the most distant stars?
I'll skip #2, not worth worrying about in light of what I said above.
3. Hrmm, how in the world could religious folk account for this one? It uses science to show they've been preserved for amazing amounts of time and why would God put such paintings on the wall before we found them, almost like what I said about light from stars & such... Ok, how about this: How are we so sure carbon dating & uranium dating & such are so accurate? NO! Seriously, before you shutdown on me, really think hard about this... How are carbon/uranium/whatever dating done? Under controlled conditions & certain assumptions right? Since when is nature a controlled environment with such assumptions? Such dating processes work on the idea that we know enough about the past to know that there was no possible way for nature to intervene & either help preserve paintings, or in the case of fossils & such, weather them & interact chemically with them & such to "taint" the results of dating!
Here's something more to consider as proof for God... Scientists often date layers of rock & soil on earth, as though some layers are older than others by millions of years or what not, which would suggest evolution, big bang, whatever else someone can dream up. However, there are areas in Texas (not small either!) of some 70 square acres or more I believe, where 2 layers are basically inverted... to where the YOUNGER layer is BENEATH the OLDER layer, which makes no sense if you hold to evolution, big bang, etc...
Now this one I'd have to ask a friend on to find out where he got the evidence... but there was a cowboy boot found in Texas somewhere with a man's leg in it (he long since being dead I would imagine) perfectly FOSSILIZED! And unless any of you know of dinosaurs or people living here millions of years ago with cowboy boots on, I'm pretty sure that shoots down the dating process pretty well. I think I shall have to talk to that friend & figure out where he got this info. It's almost 1AM my time though, time for bed.
My attention is called to the oh so brilliant Mr. Spock (not Dr. Spock), in Star Trek IV, when he says something like "Only human arrogance would presume the probe must be meant for man." Seems pretty arrogant to me that man would assume that evolution is the reason we're so powerful & therefore we're able to adapt to anything, not stopping to consider...
how do we know we're so powerful? Who in the world are we going to compare ourselves to? One another? animals? dare I say it: plants?
[begin sarcasm] Oh, now that certainly proves we're powerful! [end sarcasm] Perhaps that's why people presume they've killed God or made Him not exist for all time & eternity... So convinced that we're so powerful & we know enough to know He doesn't exist by our so-called science. To quote another celebrity, namely John Stossel, "Give me a break!"
Actually science and God go hand in hand and there are quite a few notable scientists who work in the field of showing proof for God through science... the 2 that come to mind are:
Science and Nature - 2 Votes for God (I forget who does these off hand)
Apologetics Press (www.apologeticspress.org) where Bert Thompson helps out...
He's had articles on things like... Isn't it interesting that the Bible says to circumcize a baby boy on the EIGHTH day after their birth... why in the world would the 8th day matter? Because biologists (and I'm not talking just religious folk) have found that on the 8th day is when the amount of Vitamin K (I think it is) is at its highest in the life of the child. Vitamin K is what helps blood to clot... before that time the blood can't clot properly & circumcizing a child would have caused a lot of bleeding & perhaps kill the child...
This written in a book 1000's of years old which means the people of the time couldn't have had the scientific facilities to know this themselves... Coincidence? I would think most with an OPEN mind & willing to find out for themselves wouldn't believe so. God has every right to be considered in science because he created it. Even if scientists won't accept it, it matters not... If He does indeed exist, as I and so many others believe, all the theories in the world to try to disprove Him matters not when all is said & done.
Uhmm, I believe the earth to be perhaps 6,000-10,000 years old, but I still believe in dinosaurs, just not the millions/billions of years for their evolution... just to throw that in
A human classification... doesn't guarantee everyone will agree with it, or must agree with it. The scientific definition there for an animal isn't necessarily going to be agreed upon by all, and those who don't agree aren't wrong then... merely their definition of an animal doesn't put humans in the same stack as animals.
First off the Big Bang is only a theory, but if we must get into it...
If you are up for it you can read this regarding the Big Bang, written by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. (whether you regard his Ph.D. or not is up to you):
http://www.ApologeticsPress.org/rr/faq/r&r9206b.ht m
If you don't care to read it, I'll try & hit a few high-lights as best I can (I'll paraphrase as best I can too, if you want the real quotes, try the actual article):
1) The Steady State model by Sir Fred Hoyle, suggests that matter is created from nothing and that newly formed matter pushes old matter further out right? If this is the case, what do we do with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics... "matter & energy can neither be created, nor destroyed" ?
2) So now onto the Big Bang which replaced the Steady State model by saying there was a "cosmic egg" (quoting from the article there)... a densely packed proton or what not that exploded... This egg explodes & at some point like a sine wave (the article gives much better detail than this) it reaches its amplitude & comes back in on itself & therefore the universe oscillates forever.
Now, if it does oscillate then can we verify it? [my own comment here: If we say nope, then we're going on blind faith in the theory, not pratical for scientific minds] Welp then the question of whether the universe is 'closed' or 'open' comes up... If it's closed, voila, oscillations possible, Big Bang/Big Crunch seems more plausible, done. If it's open, then nothing there to stop the expansion, Big Bang/Big Crunch dimly fades into the distance.
The next 2 paragraphs are pretty much my own comments & observations from the article:
So if 'closed', then where are the walls? Invisible or not, there must be something keeping everything in then, and the question arises... what is outside the walls? Nothing? universe stops... WOW! however do we explain this scientifically? If there's more outside the walls, then the walls aren't the true walls of the universe... 'closed' universe seems unlikely to me, and while I may not have all the emperical data & such before me, the article seems to suggest that the emperical data we have doesn't support a 'closed' universe at all.
So, if 'open' universe... universe can't oscillate, must be a starting point & some day an ending point...
You can take all or none of what I've said to heart, but again, Big Bang/Big Crunch, is just a theory, and the emperical data doesn't seem to support it at all
like? i'm not so quick to lend myself to scientific "theories" because some Ph.D. says he/she knows better. I've heard plenty about the bending of space, but the simple truth is... certain of the 100+ theories about evolution and the big bang suggest that the universe is expanding outwards, while all the evidence suggests that the universe is shrinking & decaying... that doesn't say to me... eternal non-decaying universe... that says dying universe that will disappear some day.
interpretations? then should we throw away all historical documents as falsified by agendas & such? should we believe the first say 30 presidents were all made up? should we believe the book 1984? what do we believe & what do we doubt? Do we doubt the Bible because it's one of the best known religious books, or books period & convicts people of wrong doing saying "Don't do this, but do do that" ? Where do you draw the line? Or should we flat out doubt all history and just live for now? While I'm not a huge history buff, I'm not quick to dismiss it all either. And while it may be ok for you to take a dictionary's definition on the assumption that someone probably did the background work for me, I don't choose to do so with an issue as large as religion.
But if you choose to take another direction, that's your own decision to make, I just won't be quick to do the same.
God is supposed to be unknowable, so quit trying to guess his intentions.
If you are so inclined to consider this... try 1st Corinthians 2... God revealed certain parts of His being to us, some He did not... Well why not God? Are you too good for us to tell us everything? Who are you God to be so arrogant to not tell us more about yourself? Maybe you don't exist... Hrmm, BUT WAIT! Perhaps when the Bible records you are infinite that means you didn't tell us certain other things because while we live on earth we are incapable of understanding the infinite until we leave the finite universe & our soul sees the infinite & can comprehend it as God intended...
As far as your definitions go... Dictionaries may be good for many things, but if I really wanted to know what Michael Crighton, for example, thinks & feels while writing his novels, why would I go to a commentary and not Michael himself? So then why not go to the Bible, aka - God's written word, to see what God has to say about what a soul is, if indeed He is the one who has created all of them?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually what I think ought to be pointed out is not just size and heat issues, but the fact that it is 64bits and still fully compatible with x86 as it stands today... So when 64bit applications are in mass production (there's already efforts by M$, the Linux community and I'm guessing the *BSD community too) they'll naturally be faster & more efficient than the current instruction set... I mean you can now manipulate 64bits at one time rather than just 32bits, and all without touching an MMX &/or SSE register!
ya, that is a frightening thought... the only way to keep such a computer from ever harming anyone, besides embedding code in a ROM in the CPU that can't be circumvented, is to disconnect any modems, NICs, etc... and hope it has no way of sending a signal back thru the electrical outlet powering the thing, nor thru some radio waves or something... but still, it seems like it'd be virtually impossible to fully ensure that it couldn't decide to TRY to wipe us all out (even though i don't think it'd ever be able to succeed 100% in total genocide)!
and yet, what science has only proved in the last few centuries, was already recorded in the Bible 1000 or so years before... see the book of Isaiah about "circle of the earth" and so forth...
WinME? over FreeBSD? for a server? uhh, yeah, nice April Fools joke!
When you read from a hard disk, errors aren't that a big a deal as far as skipping because you can just read/write raw sectors and let software take a crack it fixing it... My understanding of this article is that you can't just read the sectors into memory from the CD-ROM, but that the CD-ROM has to be particular about making sure it's error corrected... Is that really the case? I mean I would think there's a way to force it to just read it, let software do its thing & move on... in which case, I'm sure algorithms could be written to error correct it...
So ultimately... how in the world do you copy protect it?
Now granted most of the architecture for x86 is old and needs to eventually die off, but AMD's job for making the 64bit processors is *NOT* to try and re-engineer the x86 architecture, otherwise it wouldn't be the first 64bit x86 processor, it would be a new 64bit architecture like Itanium... the whole idea was to extend the capabilities of x86 which honestly is the MOST MARKETABLE processor for home/business use, and somewhat for the server market too! So to be honest, AMD made a brilliant move, that Intel is shying away from, in that they took something old and obselete and they improved it, just like they've done a few other times! Considering this is a free opinion, don't rant and rave about it, you got your money's worth if you don't like it! :)
Ok, I've heard that one and/or/not gate is like 4-5 molecules in today's chips... How much smaller would a buckyball bit be than a regular J-K, T, D, whatever flip-flop ?
Ok, obviously I left an important couple of details... oops! I am planning to use a 700MB CD and I have more tracks to rip & encode too though... and well 22MB is not enough for about 10+ tracks more.
I've been making a ton of oggs from ripped audio tracks from my own CD collection, currently taking 678MB on my D: partition.
I kept wondering about perhaps another format that was smaller or some way I could compress the oggs a little bit, but still be able to put them on a CD and not have to decompress them every time I wanted to hear one.
So does anyone know how much better compression it offers now? If I could get rid of another 50MB by slightly smaller ogg files (about ~0.3MB/ogg) that would be great! As long as sonique will still play them...
Which translation are you reading from? The one I have agrees with the original text pretty well in that area & all others.
1) Forget that experiment... can you say 100% that light cannot be sped up whatsoever by nature? The experiment is just an example, we don't know everything contained in the universe to know when it is slowed down or sped up, so you can't base ages & scientific facts on it, as much as many would probably like to.
3) How do you know it is accurate for older items? Because they say the halflife is such & such time & therefore no matter what chemistry & physics & everything else happens to a painting, fossil, etc... we know carbon dating must be correct! how? you have no control over nature from the past & only limited control on it today. The dating process makes too many assumptions that it can't make because it wasn't there to watch all the environmental changes on the item. And saying we had ice age, then stone age, then this age & that still doesn't tell you the exact happenings to each specific artifact, nor can it ever!
maybe the reason we say "God did it" and actually present PLENTY of proof, that is USUALLY ignored by those convinced by their own religion of evolutionary science or big bang-ism, is because so-called science with such theories as evolution & the big-bang offer plenty more questions than answers...
One example... someone on the earlier cloning article responded to one of my posts talking about the Big Bang and Big Crunch which says, if I'm not mistaken, that the universe started from a small proton (or whatever small "thingie") and exploded and at some point it can't go further, hence the Big Crunch, start all over, and repeat for eternity. So this offers 2 possibilities for the universe that must be considered... The first says the universe is 'open' and therefore the universe could expand forever and Big Bang/Big Crunch doesn't happen, hence universe isn't eternal, something must come before, WHAT CAME BEFORE? (one of those questions that pops up that Big Bang can't explain away). The 2nd then is that the universe is a 'closed' system (the more popular of the 2 by Big Bang/Big Crunch supporters apparently) and so Big Bang/Big Crunch could conceivably happen, end of story. The 2nd brings up 2 questions then... 1) How in the world do you prove that? We can only use readings from the past few 100 years, that is minute if the universe is billions of years old, and proves nothing. 2) What is outside the closed universe? Absolutely nothing? Explain that one to me without God in the equation. More universe? Well then the closed walls must be farther out if more universe exists outside. So after you find the farthest outer walls in such a case, you still have to explain either what's outside or if it truly a closed universe then if you're always finding new outer limits!
How about the evidence (it was in National Geographic a 2-3 decades ago) that was hushed up about a Chinese fishing freighter off the coast of China or Japan or something that caught something large in their nets and it was bleeding (a general sign it hasn't been dead for too long :) and it turned out to be a plesiosaur (aka - a dinosaur species) ? Or can we silently ignore this evidence because it happens to combat the theories that dinosaurs are totally extinct either by comets or whatever else someone can dream up?
Ok, then let's consider this... How in the world did these people with their lack of scientific knowledge (we're talking a few 1000 years B.C. here when it first started) decide they should circumcize a child at all? I mean the people would be well aware of what would hurt a child and so if just any ol' person said "Hey, go cut your child like this" they'd think the person off their rocker and wonder what advantage that could possibly have. The advantage (and this I remember hearing in a high school health class a few years ago) is that there's A LOT of bacteria in that area, and while it won't kill anyone not to have it removed, removing the bacteria from that area can be beneficial too. Now how can you try to explain away someone just experimenting on cutting up babies to see if it would help their healt in a time when technology (including medical science) was not anywhere close to what it is today?
Before I scoot to bed... the original word used there in Hebrew for 'day' means a LITERAL 24HOUR PERIOD OF TIME, not billions of years. If you'd like to see what I mean, you can grab a copy of Strong's Concordance and look up 'day' in Genesis.
Regarding your "Evidence to the contrary"...
1. Yep, the ever so popular way for us to try & prove the universe is billions of years old or so... use things like stars and *assume* that their light is travelling the exact same speed throughout, or perhaps allow for some margin of error just for scientists to TRY to cover themselves.
Have we not seen experiments in the last year or 2 about slowing light a lot or speeding it up a lot? Are you going to say that can only be done in a lab? "Oh, but it's rare." So? Are you saying we know the universe so well to know what all the light goes through to reach earth & conclude the age that way?
"Ok, but the Bible can't account for such things & we still know it would take millions of years even with light being sped up by an incredible amount!" How could the Bible not account for it? If you were God, and you were creating the universe with stars to rule over the day & night to help in sea navigation & as part of the signs of seasons too, and of course, being all-powerful to create the laws of science, would it be so hard for you to make light from these stars already appear on earth, so that the light we see from them now is really only a few 1000 years old for even the most distant stars?
I'll skip #2, not worth worrying about in light of what I said above.
3. Hrmm, how in the world could religious folk account for this one? It uses science to show they've been preserved for amazing amounts of time and why would God put such paintings on the wall before we found them, almost like what I said about light from stars & such... Ok, how about this: How are we so sure carbon dating & uranium dating & such are so accurate? NO! Seriously, before you shutdown on me, really think hard about this... How are carbon/uranium/whatever dating done? Under controlled conditions & certain assumptions right? Since when is nature a controlled environment with such assumptions? Such dating processes work on the idea that we know enough about the past to know that there was no possible way for nature to intervene & either help preserve paintings, or in the case of fossils & such, weather them & interact chemically with them & such to "taint" the results of dating!
Here's something more to consider as proof for God... Scientists often date layers of rock & soil on earth, as though some layers are older than others by millions of years or what not, which would suggest evolution, big bang, whatever else someone can dream up. However, there are areas in Texas (not small either!) of some 70 square acres or more I believe, where 2 layers are basically inverted... to where the YOUNGER layer is BENEATH the OLDER layer, which makes no sense if you hold to evolution, big bang, etc...
Now this one I'd have to ask a friend on to find out where he got the evidence... but there was a cowboy boot found in Texas somewhere with a man's leg in it (he long since being dead I would imagine) perfectly FOSSILIZED! And unless any of you know of dinosaurs or people living here millions of years ago with cowboy boots on, I'm pretty sure that shoots down the dating process pretty well. I think I shall have to talk to that friend & figure out where he got this info. It's almost 1AM my time though, time for bed.
www.apologeticspress.org
My attention is called to the oh so brilliant Mr. Spock (not Dr. Spock), in Star Trek IV, when he says something like "Only human arrogance would presume the probe must be meant for man." Seems pretty arrogant to me that man would assume that evolution is the reason we're so powerful & therefore we're able to adapt to anything, not stopping to consider...
how do we know we're so powerful? Who in the world are we going to compare ourselves to? One another? animals? dare I say it: plants?
[begin sarcasm] Oh, now that certainly proves we're powerful! [end sarcasm] Perhaps that's why people presume they've killed God or made Him not exist for all time & eternity... So convinced that we're so powerful & we know enough to know He doesn't exist by our so-called science. To quote another celebrity, namely John Stossel, "Give me a break!"
Actually science and God go hand in hand and there are quite a few notable scientists who work in the field of showing proof for God through science... the 2 that come to mind are:
Science and Nature - 2 Votes for God (I forget who does these off hand)
Apologetics Press (www.apologeticspress.org) where Bert Thompson helps out...
He's had articles on things like... Isn't it interesting that the Bible says to circumcize a baby boy on the EIGHTH day after their birth... why in the world would the 8th day matter? Because biologists (and I'm not talking just religious folk) have found that on the 8th day is when the amount of Vitamin K (I think it is) is at its highest in the life of the child. Vitamin K is what helps blood to clot... before that time the blood can't clot properly & circumcizing a child would have caused a lot of bleeding & perhaps kill the child...
This written in a book 1000's of years old which means the people of the time couldn't have had the scientific facilities to know this themselves... Coincidence? I would think most with an OPEN mind & willing to find out for themselves wouldn't believe so. God has every right to be considered in science because he created it. Even if scientists won't accept it, it matters not... If He does indeed exist, as I and so many others believe, all the theories in the world to try to disprove Him matters not when all is said & done.
Uhmm, I believe the earth to be perhaps 6,000-10,000 years old, but I still believe in dinosaurs, just not the millions/billions of years for their evolution... just to throw that in
A human classification... doesn't guarantee everyone will agree with it, or must agree with it. The scientific definition there for an animal isn't necessarily going to be agreed upon by all, and those who don't agree aren't wrong then... merely their definition of an animal doesn't put humans in the same stack as animals.
First off the Big Bang is only a theory, but if we must get into it...
If you are up for it you can read this regarding the Big Bang, written by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. (whether you regard his Ph.D. or not is up to you):t m
http://www.ApologeticsPress.org/rr/faq/r&r9206b.h
If you don't care to read it, I'll try & hit a few high-lights as best I can (I'll paraphrase as best I can too, if you want the real quotes, try the actual article):
1) The Steady State model by Sir Fred Hoyle, suggests that matter is created from nothing and that newly formed matter pushes old matter further out right? If this is the case, what do we do with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics... "matter & energy can neither be created, nor destroyed" ?
2) So now onto the Big Bang which replaced the Steady State model by saying there was a "cosmic egg" (quoting from the article there) ... a densely packed proton or what not that exploded... This egg explodes & at some point like a sine wave (the article gives much better detail than this) it reaches its amplitude & comes back in on itself & therefore the universe oscillates forever.
Now, if it does oscillate then can we verify it? [my own comment here: If we say nope, then we're going on blind faith in the theory, not pratical for scientific minds] Welp then the question of whether the universe is 'closed' or 'open' comes up... If it's closed, voila, oscillations possible, Big Bang/Big Crunch seems more plausible, done. If it's open, then nothing there to stop the expansion, Big Bang/Big Crunch dimly fades into the distance.
The next 2 paragraphs are pretty much my own comments & observations from the article:
So if 'closed', then where are the walls? Invisible or not, there must be something keeping everything in then, and the question arises... what is outside the walls? Nothing? universe stops... WOW! however do we explain this scientifically? If there's more outside the walls, then the walls aren't the true walls of the universe... 'closed' universe seems unlikely to me, and while I may not have all the emperical data & such before me, the article seems to suggest that the emperical data we have doesn't support a 'closed' universe at all.
So, if 'open' universe... universe can't oscillate, must be a starting point & some day an ending point...
You can take all or none of what I've said to heart, but again, Big Bang/Big Crunch, is just a theory, and the emperical data doesn't seem to support it at all
like? i'm not so quick to lend myself to scientific "theories" because some Ph.D. says he/she knows better. I've heard plenty about the bending of space, but the simple truth is... certain of the 100+ theories about evolution and the big bang suggest that the universe is expanding outwards, while all the evidence suggests that the universe is shrinking & decaying... that doesn't say to me... eternal non-decaying universe... that says dying universe that will disappear some day.
interpretations? then should we throw away all historical documents as falsified by agendas & such? should we believe the first say 30 presidents were all made up? should we believe the book 1984? what do we believe & what do we doubt? Do we doubt the Bible because it's one of the best known religious books, or books period & convicts people of wrong doing saying "Don't do this, but do do that" ? Where do you draw the line? Or should we flat out doubt all history and just live for now? While I'm not a huge history buff, I'm not quick to dismiss it all either. And while it may be ok for you to take a dictionary's definition on the assumption that someone probably did the background work for me, I don't choose to do so with an issue as large as religion.
But if you choose to take another direction, that's your own decision to make, I just won't be quick to do the same.
God is supposed to be unknowable, so quit trying to guess his intentions.
If you are so inclined to consider this... try 1st Corinthians 2... God revealed certain parts of His being to us, some He did not... Well why not God? Are you too good for us to tell us everything? Who are you God to be so arrogant to not tell us more about yourself? Maybe you don't exist... Hrmm, BUT WAIT! Perhaps when the Bible records you are infinite that means you didn't tell us certain other things because while we live on earth we are incapable of understanding the infinite until we leave the finite universe & our soul sees the infinite & can comprehend it as God intended...
As far as your definitions go... Dictionaries may be good for many things, but if I really wanted to know what Michael Crighton, for example, thinks & feels while writing his novels, why would I go to a commentary and not Michael himself? So then why not go to the Bible, aka - God's written word, to see what God has to say about what a soul is, if indeed He is the one who has created all of them?