speaking of netware servers... mine's been up for 107 days. Last time it was down because the electricity was out for several hours. And before that the last time it was down was, oh yeah, I remember... when I was unpacking it.
I don't remember when that was... maybe late 80's? But seriously, if we now have sound cancelling earphones and sound cancelling equipment for server rooms, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the military's had it for a while. A B52 certainly has the space for a BIG amplifier and some really nice speakers!:)
The military's "been there, done that". There's a practice B52 bombing run the goes over my parents' house. Pretty cool as a kid, we'd hear a B52 coming, and look up in time to see it disappearing just over the treetops. One night, my dad was outside looking at the sky. All of the sudden, a B52 flys over, low enough to make out the cockpit windows (that's how low they typically flew). Only thing was, there was no sound, just wind. Absolutely true. Sound cancelling technology has been around for a long time. For that matter, so have holograms. So, class, which of those silent B52's is the real one?
The case for micro-evolution (variations within a species) is well founded. But "micro-evolution is true, therefore macro-evolution is true", just doesn't follow. Hall's e-coli bacteria have developed resistance to different antibiotics, but they're still e-coli bacteria.
older apps will just be scaled to 320x320 by pixel doubling and the graphiti area will be displayed, I'd guess. In effect, the older apps would look exactly like they always have. Newer apps, though would have the option of 320x320 + graphiti area or 320x480. The Handera 330 already does this at 240x320.
I'd say you're off there. QuickOffice for Palm already will utilize the 240x320 screen of the Handera 330 in either portrait or landscape mode. PalmOS devices are definitely moving toward higher resolutions and virtual graphiti areas.
Antennas work best in multiples of the wavelength of the frequency. It is my understanding that antennas get better the longer they are, but that would only be true at multiples of the wavelength. I.E. if you antenna is tuned at a certain length, doubling it would be good, but just extending it a bit would cause the signal to get worse. Then again... I could be wrong. My dad's a HAM, but that doesn't mean I know anything.:)
The college in my town had a fire in their main building a couple of years ago. One thing they did when they rebuilt was put smart-boards in EVERY classroom. I've heard nothing but rave reviews. Especially from the students who can get the notes back in their dorm room over the college intranet. Funny that this is just now getting around to/. though.
combine this, the mechanized exoskeletons that the military is working on, and their spider-silk armor and suddenly all our Marines become Robocops. The REALLY amazing thing is that ALL those pieces are being worked on and have ALL been demonstrated at some level... The marines are talking AR for special forces by 2003 and all troups by 2005. I wonder if they'll have their exoskeletons working by then... A soldier equipped like that could probably take on "normal" soldiers 100-to-1 or 1000-to-1 and win hands down.
hmmm... I hadn't heard that little newsbyte yet (about Bill selling his stock)... He doesn't think MS is going to do an Enron, does he? Then again, if I had the money he has, I'd like to think that I'd give most of it away, keep, oh, say, a few billion to live modestly on:) and retire. 'course I probably don't have the personality required to make those billions in the first place.
I'm not sure why you ask that last question. Mount Ararat WAS submerged. It was 150 days after the rain stopped that the ark came to rest on the mountain. Even then the mountain would have still been underwater.
All your questions are answered in Genesis. Noah spent 120 years building the Ark. The dimensions have been previously posted here. The olive branch was newly grown. Seeds would have survived the flood. 40 days after the ark came to rest on the mountain, Noah sent out a dove, but it came back with nothing. He waited another week and sent it out again, and this time it came back with the olive leaf. So the olive leaf had had 47 days to grow.
-- 3) The Tower of Babel barely explains the different languages (and their similarities and differences), but it does not explain different cultures. Oh and about that genetic drift - you mean mankind changed? As in evolved?
Of course mankind has changed. I'm not a carbon copy of my parents. Nobody argues that species don't change and evolve. The argument is whether or not they change into other species. The argument is over whether or not an aligator, a canary, AIDS and people all have a common ancestor.
Secondly, about different cultures... what needs to be explained? It is common sense and observable fact that cultures change. It doesn't need an explaination in the Bible, and it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution (or not) of species.
-- 4) The Ark was tiny compared to modern ships.
Modern cruise ships and supertankers are in the neighborhood of 1000 feet (~300 m) long. Modern aircraft carriers are on the order of 600 feet long. So 450 feet long is smaller than the world's largest modern ships, but hardly tiny.
"every bird of every sort" is referring to the fact that every type of bird was represented, not that every bird on the face of the earth was in the boat. Read verse 3 and you'll see that. Why ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't mention all the different animals that exist? It never attempts to list them all, what's the point? Noah was instructed to take seven pairs of each type of clean animals, 2 pairs of each type of unclean animals, and 7 pairs of each type of bird. And why do you question how animals got to where they are now? Don't you think they walked, swam or flew?
Right. The 401k is tax-defferred, and there are several instances where you are allowed to withdraw money without paying penalties. You can always withdraw all the money if you want/need to, but you pay penalties+taxes. My guess is that this guy was at the end of his rope and withdrew what little money he apparently had in the 401k.
Yeah, I've wondered about that too. I think that Aldous Huxley was extremely insightful and did a very good job of predicting where mankind's fallenness would take him. On the other hand, it becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy when people in high places (Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example) take it as a guide-book.
OT: I think the future will look more like a mix of 1984 and BNW. On the 1984 front, from the surveillance angle, it looks like we're setting that up voluntarily. How much of our lives (credit card transactions, e-mail [anything on the net, really], etc) is recorded somewhere for Big Brother (today or in the future) to examine?
One interesting element in both 1984 and BNW: there was an element of the population that the elites more-or-less didn't care about and ignored. In BNW, it was the reservations; I forgot what it was in 1984. Anyway, given the choice, what would you choose? The 1984/BNWish life, or that of the "primitive" people living on the reservations?
I began working at a private manufacturing company several years ago. It's not glamorous, but making $45k in a very rural area (read: low cost of living) doesn't seem too bad to me. Actually, I probably got hired on at a good time; I expect the salary offered would be lower now. Anyway, as the only "techie" here at this plant, I've been able to watch the tech industry crash and burn knowing that the only thing that could take my job away would be the plant closing, which isn't going to happen.
I like your idea. The removable "engine" could contain the cpu/memory/hd/video... and the chassis could contain the screen, battery compartment, removable drive-bay. The screen is one of the pricier parts of a laptop, I'm guessing, and not likely to change much, given that 15" is about as big as a laptop screen can get, and smaller pixels aren't of much use. Might make a decently upgradable laptop, just replace the "engine", the battery, the removable media drive, whatever. Break the screen? Just get a new chassis and move everything over. So, who's gonna make this?
You're still avoiding my point. If you have a viable alternative to either evolution or creation, I'd love to hear it. Your French/Alien theory is a creation theory. (The aliens created us.)
-- It's quite possible to be an atheist and to be critical of evolution
I've yet to hear what the other alternative is.
-- Evolution is true only if it is demonstrated that it is, in fact, true. And it has.
Show me the experimental evidence that proved this. Please introduce me to the person who performed the experiment so they can repeat it for me and satisfy my curiosity. Even Einstein's theory of General Relativity is still held to be a theory, not proven fact.
-- largely because you seem not to recognize that the particular kind of God you envision is not the only possible God one can envision
Actually, I have said nothing about the particular kind of God I envision. You are correct in thinking that I believe in the God of the Bible, but for the sake of this argument "God" includes any creator being, as I implied several posts ago. In this sense, "God" would include your French Aliens. Either we were created by [insert favorite Creator here], or we evolved in some way from lesser forms, or we got here by [???].
-- I don't see why: what material reason would atheists in general have to be biased about it?
Again, what is the alternative? Evolution, creation, or what?
-- since the majority of people who believe in evolution are not atheists anyway.
They are theistic evolutionists, then?
-- Tell me, what is your measure for if someone is "really" a Christian?
Thought I'd save that for last.
Matthew 7:13 - 7:23
Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
John 3:16 - 3:21
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
In these two passages, it is clear that many will think they are Christians but be deceived; much less that they will deceive others. The determining factor in being a Christian is belief in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, that God requires justice (punishment for sin) and that Jesus took our punishment upon himself (in the same way that the wife of the reporter currently being held in Pakistan [if he isn't dead already] is pleading that she would give her life in place of his). Believing thus, confessing our own sinfulness, and repenting (turning our back on our previous ways) is the essence of becoming a Christian. This is something that every individual must decide. There are some things in the Bible that are vague enough to keep us wondering about them until the end of time, but the way of salvation is not one of them.
Now, you can believe that or not. The choice is up to you. If you don't believe that, you are not a Christian. Neither is anyone else who claims to be a Christian, but denies the diety, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Apparently people find it hard to understand how someone can claim to be a Christian and not be. I can claim to be an African American, a Hispanic, Japanese, Indian, or Korean, but that wouldn't change the fact that I'm Caucasian. The color of my skin gives that fact away. Similarly, someone can claim to be whatever they want. The condition of their heart before God is the only thing that matters, and that condition will reflect in the way they live.
There are a lot of people who claim to be Christians who have no idea what that even means. Unfortunately, the things that they do reflect on Christians in the eyes of everybody else.
It's been fun arguing with you. I don't care if you want to be dogmatic about evolution or not, but I do care that you've considered the other alternative. If God (the God of the Christian Bible) exists and created everything, then that's something that we all need to think long and hard about. If not, then I'm a quack and we'll both die someday. Unless some other religion is true; again, something that everyone must decide for himself.
I'm sure I'll be attacked mercilessly for posting all of this. Hey, this is Slashdot, right? Maybe it'll cause you or someone else to stop and think about the profound consequences if God does exist.
And don't take me as the final word on any of this. I'm just a ordinary guy like you. If you've examined everything to the point that you're satisfied in what you believe, and you're willing to bet your life on it, so be it. I hope for your sake that you're right.
I'd like to see your sources for your assertion that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. I know that some do. I have no idea about the Jews. Also, your definition of Christian and mine may differ. Someone can call him/herself a Christian and not be. It is common for entire groups of people to be classified as Christian, but the qualification isn't by birth or association; it's a personal decision.
Back to my other point... "If God does not exist, then evolution must be true." It does not follow that "If God does exist then evolution must be false." So I'm okay ignoring that segment of the population that believes in both God and evolution. Believe in God does not necessarily imply disbelief in evolution. However, disbelief in God very obviously implies disbelief in creation. So unless there are other options than evolution or creation, disbelief in God implies belief in evolution. Therefore, anyone who disbelieves in God (athiests) must believe in evolution, or simply not care. So, unless you've got a better argument, if God does not exist, then evolution (or some other natural means??) must be true. Therefore athiests are biased in the argument of creation vs evolution.
Are there any unbiased opinions about this issue? A Christian (Jew, Muslim, or anybody else believing in divine beings, I suppose) is most likely to be biased against evolution. There are some who propose that maybe God directs evolution but I'll ignore them for now. Then there are athiests. Generally Christians don't claim to be unbiased, and they aren't. (They aren't unbiased; they are biased.) Athiests, in my observation, try to present an unbiased view, but in fact, they are biased. Any athiest has as much to win or lose by the answer to the question "Does God exist?" as much as anyone who believes in God. If an athiest has a stated opinion that God does not exist, how can he then have an unbiased opinion about evolution? If God does not exist, then things had to simply happen. If God does not exist, then evolution must be true. Therefore the question is not evolution vs creation as much as it is whether or not God exists.
Furthermore, I'm not a firm believer that humans are capable of very much unbiased thinking. How many people are unbiased vis-a-vis the Palestinian/Israel situation? How many people are unbiased about national sovereignty? (Okay, more than should be on that one...) Maybe the choices are "don't care"/"biased for choice A"/"biased for choice B".
If it is a given that anyone who cares is biased, it is also a given that to anyone who cares, the people on the other side of the issue appear to be stupid. (i.e. they can't see what is obvious to me.)
Anyway, just a little rant for the day. If there are any unbiased/.ers (ha-ha) that would like to respond, I'd love to hear from you! And trust me, if you're an unbiased/.er, you're firmly in the minority.
Yes, but part of the terrorists winning is the fact that America takes another step closer toward an Orwellian future and another step away from personal freedom. America without personal freedom is not America anymore. Yes, Israel still exists, and if America was like Israel, we wouldn't be America anymore. America will still exist, that's not the question. The America of personal freedom, a man's house is his castle, that sort of thing, is what will cease to exist.
I suppose that depends on the organization. Where I used to work, they had one (1) corporate credit card. Obviously, this wasn't a huge place, only a couple hundred employees, and they always did things with PO's when possible, but if there was the need for a credit card purchase, there was only one.
Slashdot Mirror
speaking of netware servers... mine's been up for 107 days. Last time it was down because the electricity was out for several hours. And before that the last time it was down was, oh yeah, I remember... when I was unpacking it.
Anyway...
I don't remember when that was... maybe late 80's? But seriously, if we now have sound cancelling earphones and sound cancelling equipment for server rooms, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the military's had it for a while. A B52 certainly has the space for a BIG amplifier and some really nice speakers! :)
The military's "been there, done that". There's a practice B52 bombing run the goes over my parents' house. Pretty cool as a kid, we'd hear a B52 coming, and look up in time to see it disappearing just over the treetops. One night, my dad was outside looking at the sky. All of the sudden, a B52 flys over, low enough to make out the cockpit windows (that's how low they typically flew). Only thing was, there was no sound, just wind. Absolutely true. Sound cancelling technology has been around for a long time. For that matter, so have holograms. So, class, which of those silent B52's is the real one?
The case for micro-evolution (variations within a species) is well founded. But "micro-evolution is true, therefore macro-evolution is true", just doesn't follow. Hall's e-coli bacteria have developed resistance to different antibiotics, but they're still e-coli bacteria.
older apps will just be scaled to 320x320 by pixel doubling and the graphiti area will be displayed, I'd guess. In effect, the older apps would look exactly like they always have. Newer apps, though would have the option of 320x320 + graphiti area or 320x480. The Handera 330 already does this at 240x320.
I'd say you're off there. QuickOffice for Palm already will utilize the 240x320 screen of the Handera 330 in either portrait or landscape mode. PalmOS devices are definitely moving toward higher resolutions and virtual graphiti areas.
Antennas work best in multiples of the wavelength of the frequency. It is my understanding that antennas get better the longer they are, but that would only be true at multiples of the wavelength. I.E. if you antenna is tuned at a certain length, doubling it would be good, but just extending it a bit would cause the signal to get worse. Then again... I could be wrong. My dad's a HAM, but that doesn't mean I know anything. :)
The college in my town had a fire in their main building a couple of years ago. One thing they did when they rebuilt was put smart-boards in EVERY classroom. I've heard nothing but rave reviews. Especially from the students who can get the notes back in their dorm room over the college intranet. Funny that this is just now getting around to /. though.
combine this, the mechanized exoskeletons that the military is working on, and their spider-silk armor and suddenly all our Marines become Robocops. The REALLY amazing thing is that ALL those pieces are being worked on and have ALL been demonstrated at some level... The marines are talking AR for special forces by 2003 and all troups by 2005. I wonder if they'll have their exoskeletons working by then... A soldier equipped like that could probably take on "normal" soldiers 100-to-1 or 1000-to-1 and win hands down.
hmmm... I hadn't heard that little newsbyte yet (about Bill selling his stock)... He doesn't think MS is going to do an Enron, does he? Then again, if I had the money he has, I'd like to think that I'd give most of it away, keep, oh, say, a few billion to live modestly on :) and retire. 'course I probably don't have the personality required to make those billions in the first place.
I'm not sure why you ask that last question. Mount Ararat WAS submerged. It was 150 days after the rain stopped that the ark came to rest on the mountain. Even then the mountain would have still been underwater.
All your questions are answered in Genesis. Noah spent 120 years building the Ark. The dimensions have been previously posted here. The olive branch was newly grown. Seeds would have survived the flood. 40 days after the ark came to rest on the mountain, Noah sent out a dove, but it came back with nothing. He waited another week and sent it out again, and this time it came back with the olive leaf. So the olive leaf had had 47 days to grow.
-- 3) The Tower of Babel barely explains the different languages (and their similarities and differences), but it does not explain different cultures. Oh and about that genetic drift - you mean mankind changed? As in evolved?
Of course mankind has changed. I'm not a carbon copy of my parents. Nobody argues that species don't change and evolve. The argument is whether or not they change into other species. The argument is over whether or not an aligator, a canary, AIDS and people all have a common ancestor.
Secondly, about different cultures... what needs to be explained? It is common sense and observable fact that cultures change. It doesn't need an explaination in the Bible, and it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution (or not) of species.
-- 4) The Ark was tiny compared to modern ships.
Modern cruise ships and supertankers are in the neighborhood of 1000 feet (~300 m) long. Modern aircraft carriers are on the order of 600 feet long. So 450 feet long is smaller than the world's largest modern ships, but hardly tiny.
"every bird of every sort" is referring to the fact that every type of bird was represented, not that every bird on the face of the earth was in the boat. Read verse 3 and you'll see that. Why ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't mention all the different animals that exist? It never attempts to list them all, what's the point? Noah was instructed to take seven pairs of each type of clean animals, 2 pairs of each type of unclean animals, and 7 pairs of each type of bird. And why do you question how animals got to where they are now? Don't you think they walked, swam or flew?
Wow, Kathleen! You've posted 2 comments on Slashdot and they've both been moderated +5! That's gotta be a first.
Proposals on slashdot? Nah, happens everyday! But 100% of your posts being modded +5? Now that's something!
P.S. I don't know either of you, but what the heck, congratulations anyway!
hmmm... or maybe Sub-Commander T-Po..., er, Fent
You're right. Anything can happen. But I know my company well enough to know that they aren't going anywhere soon.
Right. The 401k is tax-defferred, and there are several instances where you are allowed to withdraw money without paying penalties. You can always withdraw all the money if you want/need to, but you pay penalties+taxes. My guess is that this guy was at the end of his rope and withdrew what little money he apparently had in the 401k.
Yeah, I've wondered about that too. I think that Aldous Huxley was extremely insightful and did a very good job of predicting where mankind's fallenness would take him. On the other hand, it becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy when people in high places (Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example) take it as a guide-book.
OT: I think the future will look more like a mix of 1984 and BNW. On the 1984 front, from the surveillance angle, it looks like we're setting that up voluntarily. How much of our lives (credit card transactions, e-mail [anything on the net, really], etc) is recorded somewhere for Big Brother (today or in the future) to examine?
One interesting element in both 1984 and BNW: there was an element of the population that the elites more-or-less didn't care about and ignored. In BNW, it was the reservations; I forgot what it was in 1984. Anyway, given the choice, what would you choose? The 1984/BNWish life, or that of the "primitive" people living on the reservations?
I began working at a private manufacturing company several years ago. It's not glamorous, but making $45k in a very rural area (read: low cost of living) doesn't seem too bad to me. Actually, I probably got hired on at a good time; I expect the salary offered would be lower now. Anyway, as the only "techie" here at this plant, I've been able to watch the tech industry crash and burn knowing that the only thing that could take my job away would be the plant closing, which isn't going to happen.
I like your idea. The removable "engine" could contain the cpu/memory/hd/video... and the chassis could contain the screen, battery compartment, removable drive-bay. The screen is one of the pricier parts of a laptop, I'm guessing, and not likely to change much, given that 15" is about as big as a laptop screen can get, and smaller pixels aren't of much use. Might make a decently upgradable laptop, just replace the "engine", the battery, the removable media drive, whatever. Break the screen? Just get a new chassis and move everything over. So, who's gonna make this?
You're still avoiding my point. If you have a viable alternative to either evolution or creation, I'd love to hear it. Your French/Alien theory is a creation theory. (The aliens created us.)
-- It's quite possible to be an atheist and to be critical of evolution
I've yet to hear what the other alternative is.
-- Evolution is true only if it is demonstrated that it is, in fact, true. And it has.
Show me the experimental evidence that proved this. Please introduce me to the person who performed the experiment so they can repeat it for me and satisfy my curiosity. Even Einstein's theory of General Relativity is still held to be a theory, not proven fact.
-- largely because you seem not to recognize that the particular kind of God you envision is not the only possible God one can envision
Actually, I have said nothing about the particular kind of God I envision. You are correct in thinking that I believe in the God of the Bible, but for the sake of this argument "God" includes any creator being, as I implied several posts ago. In this sense, "God" would include your French Aliens. Either we were created by [insert favorite Creator here], or we evolved in some way from lesser forms, or we got here by [???].
-- I don't see why: what material reason would atheists in general have to be biased about it?
Again, what is the alternative? Evolution, creation, or what?
-- since the majority of people who believe in evolution are not atheists anyway.
They are theistic evolutionists, then?
-- Tell me, what is your measure for if someone is "really" a Christian?
Thought I'd save that for last.
Matthew 7:13 - 7:23
Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
John 3:16 - 3:21
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
In these two passages, it is clear that many will think they are Christians but be deceived; much less that they will deceive others. The determining factor in being a Christian is belief in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, that God requires justice (punishment for sin) and that Jesus took our punishment upon himself (in the same way that the wife of the reporter currently being held in Pakistan [if he isn't dead already] is pleading that she would give her life in place of his). Believing thus, confessing our own sinfulness, and repenting (turning our back on our previous ways) is the essence of becoming a Christian. This is something that every individual must decide. There are some things in the Bible that are vague enough to keep us wondering about them until the end of time, but the way of salvation is not one of them.
Now, you can believe that or not. The choice is up to you. If you don't believe that, you are not a Christian. Neither is anyone else who claims to be a Christian, but denies the diety, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Apparently people find it hard to understand how someone can claim to be a Christian and not be. I can claim to be an African American, a Hispanic, Japanese, Indian, or Korean, but that wouldn't change the fact that I'm Caucasian. The color of my skin gives that fact away. Similarly, someone can claim to be whatever they want. The condition of their heart before God is the only thing that matters, and that condition will reflect in the way they live.
There are a lot of people who claim to be Christians who have no idea what that even means. Unfortunately, the things that they do reflect on Christians in the eyes of everybody else.
It's been fun arguing with you. I don't care if you want to be dogmatic about evolution or not, but I do care that you've considered the other alternative. If God (the God of the Christian Bible) exists and created everything, then that's something that we all need to think long and hard about. If not, then I'm a quack and we'll both die someday. Unless some other religion is true; again, something that everyone must decide for himself.
I'm sure I'll be attacked mercilessly for posting all of this. Hey, this is Slashdot, right? Maybe it'll cause you or someone else to stop and think about the profound consequences if God does exist.
And don't take me as the final word on any of this. I'm just a ordinary guy like you. If you've examined everything to the point that you're satisfied in what you believe, and you're willing to bet your life on it, so be it. I hope for your sake that you're right.
I'd like to see your sources for your assertion that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. I know that some do. I have no idea about the Jews. Also, your definition of Christian and mine may differ. Someone can call him/herself a Christian and not be. It is common for entire groups of people to be classified as Christian, but the qualification isn't by birth or association; it's a personal decision.
Back to my other point... "If God does not exist, then evolution must be true." It does not follow that "If God does exist then evolution must be false." So I'm okay ignoring that segment of the population that believes in both God and evolution. Believe in God does not necessarily imply disbelief in evolution. However, disbelief in God very obviously implies disbelief in creation. So unless there are other options than evolution or creation, disbelief in God implies belief in evolution. Therefore, anyone who disbelieves in God (athiests) must believe in evolution, or simply not care. So, unless you've got a better argument, if God does not exist, then evolution (or some other natural means??) must be true. Therefore athiests are biased in the argument of creation vs evolution.
Have a nice day.
Are there any unbiased opinions about this issue? A Christian (Jew, Muslim, or anybody else believing in divine beings, I suppose) is most likely to be biased against evolution. There are some who propose that maybe God directs evolution but I'll ignore them for now. Then there are athiests. Generally Christians don't claim to be unbiased, and they aren't. (They aren't unbiased; they are biased.) Athiests, in my observation, try to present an unbiased view, but in fact, they are biased. Any athiest has as much to win or lose by the answer to the question "Does God exist?" as much as anyone who believes in God. If an athiest has a stated opinion that God does not exist, how can he then have an unbiased opinion about evolution? If God does not exist, then things had to simply happen. If God does not exist, then evolution must be true. Therefore the question is not evolution vs creation as much as it is whether or not God exists.
/.ers (ha-ha) that would like to respond, I'd love to hear from you! And trust me, if you're an unbiased /.er, you're firmly in the minority.
Furthermore, I'm not a firm believer that humans are capable of very much unbiased thinking. How many people are unbiased vis-a-vis the Palestinian/Israel situation? How many people are unbiased about national sovereignty? (Okay, more than should be on that one...) Maybe the choices are "don't care"/"biased for choice A"/"biased for choice B".
If it is a given that anyone who cares is biased, it is also a given that to anyone who cares, the people on the other side of the issue appear to be stupid. (i.e. they can't see what is obvious to me.)
Anyway, just a little rant for the day. If there are any unbiased
Yes, but part of the terrorists winning is the fact that America takes another step closer toward an Orwellian future and another step away from personal freedom. America without personal freedom is not America anymore. Yes, Israel still exists, and if America was like Israel, we wouldn't be America anymore. America will still exist, that's not the question. The America of personal freedom, a man's house is his castle, that sort of thing, is what will cease to exist.
I suppose that depends on the organization. Where I used to work, they had one (1) corporate credit card. Obviously, this wasn't a huge place, only a couple hundred employees, and they always did things with PO's when possible, but if there was the need for a credit card purchase, there was only one.