Yep. So you think knowledge and wisdom are only modern inventions? That if it's not "new" it isn't worth your time? I don't think that's right.
Remember, that I was saying that a pretty well educated guy back 2000 years ago concluded that there was sufficient evidence of a creator to render all men without excuse in judgment coming from said creator. There have been many intelligent people who have agreed with that conclusion though the ages since it was made. Also, remember that I don't claim to have proof, only that there IS evidence to support the conclusion there is a creator, despite the claims otherwise.
Besides, I'm not trying to make an absolute claim here, only that logically you have to accept at least the possibility of a creator, or you risk bias your interpretation of the facts.
I'm only making the claim that the *possibility* of a creator must be recognized if one is to be truthful about what they can really know. There is evidence of a creator, even if you don't accept it as proof, has been seen as proof by many throughout the ages. Others are making the unprovable claims that there is no creator, I'm just claiming that one must accept that it's possible there is a creator.
Logically, one must agree that the question of if there is a creator or not must be left open if you are using the scientific method, or you have ruled out a possible precondition that might change your interpretation of the facts.
So, no, I'm not the one making logical leaps or unprovable assertions.
You asked for evidence which I have provided. It was not intended to be proof, nor advertised as such. This is but evidence, part of the evidence that has led many to believe in a creator though the ages.
But the logical problem now becomes yours, not mine. If you wish to assert there is no creator, then I ask you to present your proof using evidence. The problem for you is that there is no logical way to prove the non-existence of something. I don't claim the ability to prove the existence of the creator, but I can point to the evidence of the creator and assert that it is possible. This is the only logical position, unless you can prove the question one way or the other, which I don't think is in either of our power to do.
So, if you are willing to accept that your position logically MUST allow for the possibility of a creator or by definition be unprovable, we can continue this. Otherwise it's really just beating around a well circled bush.
I have posted a brief outline of the evidence in other posts today, I'm loathed to do it again. So where you want to think there is nothing out there, there *is* evidence. I don't suppose it will be enough for you, but never the less it is there. Let me give you a thumbnail sketch of part of it. Life is complex in its higher forms, yet is simple enough to continue to procreate. There are many forms of life, yet they all break down into standard building blocks that imply design. The universe is winding down like an old watch and will eventually run out of entropy, yet here we are.
Again, I'm not claiming proof, only evidence. Evidence that has convinced many throughout the ages. You would assert the negative. That there is no creator, so I believe that the burden of proof does not fall to me but to you. How can you be sure? How do you prove the negative? I don't think you can logically, so I contend that logically you have to accept that a creator might be possible, like it or not.
That's not what the Apostle Paul said, in fact he claims that there is enough evidence in creation to hold individuals accountable to the creator. Seems he thought there was sufficient evidence to claim there most assuredly was a creator and that evidence left men without excuse.
So, there *is* evidence of a creator, even if you choose not to accept it.
Then complain to SlashDot directly if it's worth it. I don't see that it is for you old man.
Unfair thing happen all the time and LoJack entering into your market able to throw resources into marketing and catch enough attention of SlashDot posters to get a article accepted may or may not be one of them. So if you *really* believe that this article was a plant or SlashDot was somehow complicit in advertising your competition over you, get used to the idea of folks not following the rules. I can tell you that in my 25 years of working in various parts of the technology industry I've seen a lot of people who choose to not follow the rules and do horribly unethical and immoral things. Bad people and companies are everywhere, and although I'm committed to the ethical and moral high road myself, I recognize that not everybody out there does the same. If indeed this LoJack post was unethical, then you are just wasting your time on this posting.
So you won't find me on SlashDot crying in my cheerios. I suggest you do the same, unless you really just needed to vent, in which case, you are welcome to sit on the couch and pontificate towards the ceiling in my office though slashdot anytime you like.
Creationism does benefit in a way by providing a logical end to the series of questions.
Not at all. Who created the Creator? After all, everything must have a creator.
Who said "everything must have a creator"? I said that belief in a creator affords you a logical ending to your logical series of questions where your assumptions lead you to the ultimate series of recursive subroutine calls.
As another poster pointed out, your point is not yet made, mainly because you obviously do not understand the position of your opponent.
I've only asserted that there is evidence and I've posted generally what it is in other posts so I won't repost it here, I have not asserted that it will convince you. The salient fact is that there IS evidence and given you will be incapable of producing proof that a creator *doesn't* exist, logically you must allow for it to be possible. Which is my point here.
Not an engineer eh? Never had to take a thermodynamics course in college? Thermodynamics has more to do with it than you likely imagine. Anytime you convert energy from one form to another, you are going to hit something that has to do with the conversion of energy from one form to another and likely with the transfer of heat in some way. The laws of thermodynamics will apply...
It is perfectly fair because it is *not* my assertion that we are proving, but theirs.. You can't just assert something doesn't exist, then cry foul when somebody asks you for the proof of your assertion. The logical thing to do is to acknowledge they cannot prove the negative they have asserted. It's their claim to prove and we both know they cannot so the existence of a creator must be allowed.
So, If you allow for the possibility of a creator, there is no problem with teaching creation in schools as an alternate scientific theory right along side evolution. The two theories differ in initial assumptions and therefore have differing interpretation of the facts. I have my opinions as to which interpretation is the truth, but I'm not out asserting that you can only teach what my views are. The other side of this argument is much less tolerant.
You can cry into your Cheerios about this if you have too, but you've got to know that LoJack has name recondition in the anti theft market. I'm sorry if your business is a competitor to them now, but you've got to know the market and who the competition is. They think there is opportunity here, so don't get upset, they've just confirmed that there seems to be money to be made. Man up and get going.
Hopefully you can distinguish your self from the competition and make a go of it, but somehow you will need to come up with something they don't have. Be it some unique features, cheaper purchase, lower operating cost, easier to install, or something that makes your product more desirable. So what if LoJack is getting free advertising on ShalsDot, it doesn't matter. They are going to out flank you on advertising and leverage their already considerable market share anyway, shalsdot is really just a sideshow on a two bit carnival ride. It's not like computer nerds are big automobile buffs or are out buying the systems you sell in large numbers.
So get busy, get noticed and stop crying about competition and unfair advantages. Since we left grade school Life has not been fair. It takes hard work and risk of failure to get to success. Good luck.
Now I'm not sure how this is different from "On Star" but it sure seems to be *exactly* the same kind of thing they've been doing for a decade. Tie some cell phone to a computer and a GPS receiver attached to the communications buss in the car and there is a load of things you can do. Problem with LoJack is that if they are forced to go though the ODB-2 connector, they will have limited access to your car to do what they've done in the past that brought them to almost a household name. You might be able to shut down an engine through the OBD-2 connector, but that's likely going to require manufacturer specific software and possibly custom hardware to make happen.
Where I get why a manufacturer might want to offer a system like this, I really don't see a huge market for it. OnStar never really took off as a money maker even on the GM cars it was offered with. The effort to push OnStar as an after market add in to your car option has been less than stellar. Keeping up with your teens as they drive around is NOT hard using their smart phone, and you need to add the "don't text when moving" app anyway so load a tracking app too.
Now I don't have a kid who is trying to hide things from me in the first place, so she's not out turning off her phone or unloading the tracking app. She's a really cautious driver (actually too cautious at times) so I don't worry that she's out racing my car, but if I did, there are inexpensive ODB-2 recorders out there which are readily available and cheap, plus the sector of taking the keys away, at least while they live under my roof and drive my cars. Your mileage may vary, but I think LoJack is gona loose their shirt on this one.
The evidence of intelligent design is all around you. The vast complexity of the universe, down to the delicate balance of our solar system and how that makes the earth habitable. The both the internal complexity and external simplicity of life. And the rules of thermodynamics which prove that everything will eventually end which implies that they started at some point in the past (which implies a creator) The existence of religion throughout the ages and almost universally in every culture, even those cultures with no outside contact.
I don't figure your world view will change with the above, but the evidence is real and exists.
If you cannot sell your textbook in Texas, good luck selling your text book. Publishing margins are SO slim that if you dump Texas, you won't be able to compete. But feel free to try.
No creationist I know denies natural selection, so I don't think your name works to distinguish evolution from creationism. You might want to try again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. So you think knowledge and wisdom are only modern inventions? That if it's not "new" it isn't worth your time? I don't think that's right.
Remember, that I was saying that a pretty well educated guy back 2000 years ago concluded that there was sufficient evidence of a creator to render all men without excuse in judgment coming from said creator. There have been many intelligent people who have agreed with that conclusion though the ages since it was made. Also, remember that I don't claim to have proof, only that there IS evidence to support the conclusion there is a creator, despite the claims otherwise.
Besides, I'm not trying to make an absolute claim here, only that logically you have to accept at least the possibility of a creator, or you risk bias your interpretation of the facts.
Yea, even Siri is going to be reduced to babbling.... "Siri, show me the way to the capital, Gothenburg!" What's she going to say?
"I'm sorry, you're nuts!"
"There is no destination for your request. "
"Destination is not available, try again.."
Clueless geek! The capital of Sweden is Stockholm...
No.. It's the Swedish Krona.. Unless you are talking about the *location* of the capital of Sweden...
How much risk do you need to avoid?
One... Two... Three...
"I need to change my luggage combination..."
Well, nobody broke into HER accounts....
your favorite color".
Blue... No, RED!
I'm taking logical leaps?
I'm only making the claim that the *possibility* of a creator must be recognized if one is to be truthful about what they can really know. There is evidence of a creator, even if you don't accept it as proof, has been seen as proof by many throughout the ages. Others are making the unprovable claims that there is no creator, I'm just claiming that one must accept that it's possible there is a creator.
Logically, one must agree that the question of if there is a creator or not must be left open if you are using the scientific method, or you have ruled out a possible precondition that might change your interpretation of the facts.
So, no, I'm not the one making logical leaps or unprovable assertions.
LOL, very good catch...Let me rephrase... The universe is a closed system, As far as the laws of thermodynamics go..
You asked for evidence which I have provided. It was not intended to be proof, nor advertised as such. This is but evidence, part of the evidence that has led many to believe in a creator though the ages.
But the logical problem now becomes yours, not mine. If you wish to assert there is no creator, then I ask you to present your proof using evidence. The problem for you is that there is no logical way to prove the non-existence of something. I don't claim the ability to prove the existence of the creator, but I can point to the evidence of the creator and assert that it is possible. This is the only logical position, unless you can prove the question one way or the other, which I don't think is in either of our power to do.
So, if you are willing to accept that your position logically MUST allow for the possibility of a creator or by definition be unprovable, we can continue this. Otherwise it's really just beating around a well circled bush.
Have a good thanksgiving
Whoa there Mullen.. Rein in the horse a bit.
I have posted a brief outline of the evidence in other posts today, I'm loathed to do it again. So where you want to think there is nothing out there, there *is* evidence. I don't suppose it will be enough for you, but never the less it is there. Let me give you a thumbnail sketch of part of it. Life is complex in its higher forms, yet is simple enough to continue to procreate. There are many forms of life, yet they all break down into standard building blocks that imply design. The universe is winding down like an old watch and will eventually run out of entropy, yet here we are.
Again, I'm not claiming proof, only evidence. Evidence that has convinced many throughout the ages. You would assert the negative. That there is no creator, so I believe that the burden of proof does not fall to me but to you. How can you be sure? How do you prove the negative? I don't think you can logically, so I contend that logically you have to accept that a creator might be possible, like it or not.
Have a good holiday.. I'm done here.
That's not what the Apostle Paul said, in fact he claims that there is enough evidence in creation to hold individuals accountable to the creator. Seems he thought there was sufficient evidence to claim there most assuredly was a creator and that evidence left men without excuse.
So, there *is* evidence of a creator, even if you choose not to accept it.
Then complain to SlashDot directly if it's worth it. I don't see that it is for you old man.
Unfair thing happen all the time and LoJack entering into your market able to throw resources into marketing and catch enough attention of SlashDot posters to get a article accepted may or may not be one of them. So if you *really* believe that this article was a plant or SlashDot was somehow complicit in advertising your competition over you, get used to the idea of folks not following the rules. I can tell you that in my 25 years of working in various parts of the technology industry I've seen a lot of people who choose to not follow the rules and do horribly unethical and immoral things. Bad people and companies are everywhere, and although I'm committed to the ethical and moral high road myself, I recognize that not everybody out there does the same. If indeed this LoJack post was unethical, then you are just wasting your time on this posting.
So you won't find me on SlashDot crying in my cheerios. I suggest you do the same, unless you really just needed to vent, in which case, you are welcome to sit on the couch and pontificate towards the ceiling in my office though slashdot anytime you like.
By definition, the universe is a closed system.... Or are you asserting there is something beyond that?
Creationism does benefit in a way by providing a logical end to the series of questions.
Not at all. Who created the Creator? After all, everything must have a creator.
Who said "everything must have a creator"? I said that belief in a creator affords you a logical ending to your logical series of questions where your assumptions lead you to the ultimate series of recursive subroutine calls.
As another poster pointed out, your point is not yet made, mainly because you obviously do not understand the position of your opponent.
I've only asserted that there is evidence and I've posted generally what it is in other posts so I won't repost it here, I have not asserted that it will convince you. The salient fact is that there IS evidence and given you will be incapable of producing proof that a creator *doesn't* exist, logically you must allow for it to be possible. Which is my point here.
Not an engineer eh? Never had to take a thermodynamics course in college? Thermodynamics has more to do with it than you likely imagine. Anytime you convert energy from one form to another, you are going to hit something that has to do with the conversion of energy from one form to another and likely with the transfer of heat in some way. The laws of thermodynamics will apply...
It is perfectly fair because it is *not* my assertion that we are proving, but theirs.. You can't just assert something doesn't exist, then cry foul when somebody asks you for the proof of your assertion. The logical thing to do is to acknowledge they cannot prove the negative they have asserted. It's their claim to prove and we both know they cannot so the existence of a creator must be allowed.
So, If you allow for the possibility of a creator, there is no problem with teaching creation in schools as an alternate scientific theory right along side evolution. The two theories differ in initial assumptions and therefore have differing interpretation of the facts. I have my opinions as to which interpretation is the truth, but I'm not out asserting that you can only teach what my views are. The other side of this argument is much less tolerant.
You can cry into your Cheerios about this if you have too, but you've got to know that LoJack has name recondition in the anti theft market. I'm sorry if your business is a competitor to them now, but you've got to know the market and who the competition is. They think there is opportunity here, so don't get upset, they've just confirmed that there seems to be money to be made. Man up and get going.
Hopefully you can distinguish your self from the competition and make a go of it, but somehow you will need to come up with something they don't have. Be it some unique features, cheaper purchase, lower operating cost, easier to install, or something that makes your product more desirable. So what if LoJack is getting free advertising on ShalsDot, it doesn't matter. They are going to out flank you on advertising and leverage their already considerable market share anyway, shalsdot is really just a sideshow on a two bit carnival ride. It's not like computer nerds are big automobile buffs or are out buying the systems you sell in large numbers.
So get busy, get noticed and stop crying about competition and unfair advantages. Since we left grade school Life has not been fair. It takes hard work and risk of failure to get to success. Good luck.
Now I'm not sure how this is different from "On Star" but it sure seems to be *exactly* the same kind of thing they've been doing for a decade. Tie some cell phone to a computer and a GPS receiver attached to the communications buss in the car and there is a load of things you can do. Problem with LoJack is that if they are forced to go though the ODB-2 connector, they will have limited access to your car to do what they've done in the past that brought them to almost a household name. You might be able to shut down an engine through the OBD-2 connector, but that's likely going to require manufacturer specific software and possibly custom hardware to make happen.
Where I get why a manufacturer might want to offer a system like this, I really don't see a huge market for it. OnStar never really took off as a money maker even on the GM cars it was offered with. The effort to push OnStar as an after market add in to your car option has been less than stellar. Keeping up with your teens as they drive around is NOT hard using their smart phone, and you need to add the "don't text when moving" app anyway so load a tracking app too.
Now I don't have a kid who is trying to hide things from me in the first place, so she's not out turning off her phone or unloading the tracking app. She's a really cautious driver (actually too cautious at times) so I don't worry that she's out racing my car, but if I did, there are inexpensive ODB-2 recorders out there which are readily available and cheap, plus the sector of taking the keys away, at least while they live under my roof and drive my cars. Your mileage may vary, but I think LoJack is gona loose their shirt on this one.
The evidence of intelligent design is all around you. The vast complexity of the universe, down to the delicate balance of our solar system and how that makes the earth habitable. The both the internal complexity and external simplicity of life. And the rules of thermodynamics which prove that everything will eventually end which implies that they started at some point in the past (which implies a creator) The existence of religion throughout the ages and almost universally in every culture, even those cultures with no outside contact.
I don't figure your world view will change with the above, but the evidence is real and exists.
Feel free to open your own business. I think you have a great business plan..
To be replaced in the textbook market by????
If you cannot sell your textbook in Texas, good luck selling your text book. Publishing margins are SO slim that if you dump Texas, you won't be able to compete. But feel free to try.
No creationist I know denies natural selection, so I don't think your name works to distinguish evolution from creationism. You might want to try again.
Evolution does similar things to the origin of life as does the "big bang" lead you to questions about what caused it. It is logically endless.
Creationism does benefit in a way by providing a logical end to the series of questions.