This has been studied, and it is shown that by spraying 90% wiht pesticides or herbicides, and leave 10% of the original population untouched, the poison tends to be effective for a longer period (up to 10 years longer on the same pest). The only issue is, is that 10% of the harvest needs to be sacrificed to the pest.
And this is why farmers widely hate "advice" from scientists and researchers. If you leave 10% of a grasshopper or army worm infestation untouched you lose not 10% but 100%. Growing up on a farm I've seen it plenty to know leaving part of a field unsprayed with pesticides can be as futile as not spraying at all. For that matter I've seen the need to spray the same crop more than once to stop a pest that was widespread in an area. Herbicides are another matter.
Look up Satanism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica if you don't believe me..."Satanism" as you describe it doesn't exist outside of fiction. I'm not terribly surprised that you have no idea what I'm talking about, but before continuing this conversation, why don't you look it up for yourself?
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "also called Devil Worship - worship of Satan, or the devil, the personality or principle regarded by the Judeo-Christian tradition as embodying absolute evil in complete antithesis to God...Satanic cults have been documented in Europe and America as far back as the 17th century"
Take your own advise and look it up yourself, or of course no-one will have any idea what your talking about.
Why don't you address my point instead of quibbling over my sig?
Because the questions you used to make your point where rhetorical and implied answers obviously not held by most religions. If you really aren't familiar with those answers, here you go.
Do religious people really think that some supreme being decides what should and should not happen for each and every one of the current 6.5 billion people on Earth 24x365?
It of course depends on the religion, but in chrisitanity the answer is no.
Long Answer: Christians believe that everything happens according to God's plan, but that does not preclude human free will. I think of it this way(flaws can be found in any analogy but if you try you should get my point).
If God is outside of time then human beings can have free will and God simply set the initial conditions of the world such that everything would play out according to his plan. God being able to "see" the end result of those initial conditions can take into consideration the cumulative impact of billions of individual's free will. I'm not sure what agreement there is on God's level of direct intervention inbetween the beginning and end of time.
What if a child contracts a fatal-if-untreated disease? By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die. Who are you to go against God's will and try to save the child's life with modern medicine? (This is, in fact, what some of those "no modern medicine" religions believe.)
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is just a combination of two questions: 1.If God is in control, why do bad things happen to good people. 2.If God is in control, we should not interfere with things like modern medicine.
Answer 1: Human free-will comes with no restrictions, even to the point of the freedom to do bad things to other people or to put ourselves and loved ones at risk (child getting sick from unknown conditions).
Answer 2: If you try and understand the christian perspective I gave on free-will then you should see that acting on that free-will is a good thing. It is actually according to God's plan, not against it. This trivially includes studying the world and learning to cure sickness with modern medicine.
If you where trying to address the fairness of children suffering/dying you will have to settle for God's promise to make things even post-mortum in Heaven. Again all the above replies are specific to Christianity but it is at least one religion and is logically consistent in it's philosophies on the questions you used. Whether you like the answer's is up to you.
By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die -- If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I guess assuming and inferring is good for the goose and not the gander? I think your also confused on the difference between an analogy and a strawman argument.
Do you think that individuals who are attempting to make a profit running a business or service are somehow exempt from these moral obligations you're so fond of?
If not, then how can you justify the folks at google making a huge, huge pile of money (to paraphrase you) "collecting information that is buried on the net in one place and publishing it"?
Google doesn't publish anything outside their own business related information. Personal information for say, myself is published by my place of work, school, etc. Google let's me search the content published by my place of work, school, etc. That's why it is called a search engine and not a publisher/content provider. Anyone reading/. aught to know that much.
but all fundamentalists are acting in the name of religion.
Not to nit-pick but I feel the need to clarify that even people who consider themselves to have no religous affiliation at all can still be fundamentalists. I think it would be more accurate to say all fundamentalists act in the name of an ideal or dogma. Environmental fundamentalists would subscribe to what religion? You could argue that they are acting with religous devotion to some ideal, but you wouldn't really consider them to be acting in the name of religion.
Then again maybe I'm just playing too much on the ambiguities and/or double meanings inherent in the wonderful english language.
Impossible according to whom? Are you saying that one quote can't be interpreted a certain way because of the way other quotes are interpreted? Sounds like things are getting messy.
"for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23
The interpretation isn't messy at all. The Bible point blank states that everyone is imperfect, all have sinned.
"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."Mathew 5:44-48
Here is the proper context where we are told to be perfect. There is again nothing messy between this verse and Romans 3:23. The 2 passages give the simple idea that we are to strive to be perfect like god, even though we will come up short.
Yep, it's a really high bar to reach. But even if someone was slowly crucifying you, the example is that we should "forgive them for they know not what they do".
Actually, I'd argue that email works in a very mail like way, even when it's being used against the recipient.
Say someone sends you a letter. You open it, read the pretty coloured card inside, and toss it in the bin. Thing is, you are now infected (through your skin and breathing ultra fine dust) with the infectious agent that was impregnated on the card. You now spread that virus to your family and friends by close contact (spreading on a lan).
Executable code need not be distributed by email. In that sense, email is broken for end users. Users are currently forced to deal with recieving unknown executable code. The parent is observing that knowing how to handle unknown executable code is not something that should be expected of general email users. This is the first time I have seen such a wonderfully concise explanation of what is wrong with email, and the right direction to go in 'fixing it'.
Now, email of course doesn't need fixing in the sense that it doesn't work as intended. It needs fixing in the sense that 95% of current email users expect email to work much differently than it was originally intended. This isn't the IT world's fault, but seeing as it is now our problem changing/fixing it seems a pretty good idea.
Re:Gach! More amateur website baloney
on
DivX 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
So many of these "hobbiest" websites like Anandtech and Tom's are just the blind leading the blind with gross misrepresentations that end up being taken as gospel by those who don't know any better
Toms' Hardware and Anandtech are two of the best hardware review site's I have found. Their broader coverage reviews(game reviews, divx) may not be as thorough, but I'm curious which sites you would suggest over these two for unbiased hardware reviews and hardware industry news. Most every non-hobbiest hardware review site I have found rarely fails to praise the newest test board they have received. Not to mention pushing a strong buy reccomendation over 5% performance gains on parts twice as expensive as their 95% slower predecessors.
If something is genetically human or not does not make a morally relevany difference unless you take a speciecist position claiming that species membership is morally relevant in itself. No defense of that position has to my knowledge been presented. It is nonetheless signifying that almost everyone makes a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals, and that this is never questioned even in an article on a topic which so obviously leads us to question what differentiates humans and non-human animals. It indicates that in our time few take the interest of animals seriously,
The moral distinction between humand and non-human animals is made because WE ARE HUMAN. We consider our own lives and the lives of our fellow humans to be of greater importance than those of other animals. If two humans and a cow are stranded on an island who's going to get eaten first? Morally we look out for each other before animals. I would turn your question back on you and ask what is wrong about taking such an ethical stance?
Looking at humans as superior does not imply that we should torture other animals. We can declare ourseleves superior and promote the humane treatment of animals at the same time. We sit uncontestedly at the top of the food chain(unless you'd like to count virii,bacteria),we've been to the moon, we have art and culture. When training a chimp or Gorilla to interact at the level of a 5 year old human is consider a massive undertaking, what does that say about our relative mental capabilities? There seems to be plenty of reason to believe that at a bare minimum our capabilities as humans are superior to those of other creatures. Why must such an observation require that we not still treat other animals with respect and dignity?
Given that the earth is warming, and that this warming will cause catastrophes in excess of anything we've seen,
Your 'givens' are the issue being debated. If we take it as a given that your position is right, then of course arguing against that position makes no sense.
But Professor Higgins also sees philosophical implications in the work... Science is about trying to understand where we come from, what our purpose is.
Religion is about trying to understand what our purpose is. Anyone claiming science is for said purpose has merely made a religion for themselves out of science. Science is the accumulation of information using the scientific method. Repeat after me, science is in no way meant to be a search for our purpose as humans. Class dismissed.;)
The rest of the world can't seem to manage its own economy (see europe, and basically anywhere else that isn't the US, China, or South Korea).
Is a $0.5 trillion defict proper management of an economy? How about the mass exodus of tech jobs to India?
The rest of the world takes a calculated blind eye on terrorism, knowing that America will probably be the target
You mean the rest of the world that suffers from daily suicide bombings? It's been what, 3 years now since the last attack on American soil?
and/or come to the defense of anyone hit hard.
And whether they like it or not.:)
The rest of the world doesn't set much of an example for everyone else to follow.
It is the stubborn American idea of setting such an example that is the source of most the world's resentment of it. Sovereign nations other than America are every bit as competent and capable of managing themselves properly. Shockingly, that even involves doing things differently than America.
Foreign nations are quite justified in feeling insulted when americans tell them there own policies are wrong. When America plans it's foreign policy around changing the policies of other nations, it's small wonder those nations are resentfull.
Yeah, I know the argument abt Direct3D being better (and I agree with it)
I'm afraid I'm a little less familiar with that argument. The only advantage that D3D has had over OpenGL is it's support for pixel/vertex shading. And even that has been for the last what, two years? And Doom3's intensive use of shaders is done through which API again? I won't go into the argument further. If you want more info look up quotes from Carmack on the subject.
One of the great things about sci-fi as a thematic backdrop (be it literature or movies/tv) is that it alone of all the genres has the possibility of inspiring a tangible effect upon the real world.
I think that is a very narrow view of literature. I doubt anyone would claim religous literature has not had a tangible effect upon the real world. In fact this extends to almost any 'classic' literature. It is difficult to bring to mind much literature deemed to be 'classical' which has NOT had a tangible effect upon the real world. George Orwell, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, all non sc-fi authors who's works have had an arguably much larger impact on the real world than any sci-fi.
You also need to remember this is in Canada. Up here we don't worry too much about things getting to warm. Mother nature does a remarkably good job of keeping everything up here frigid.
bunnyhopping jerkweeds you find in games like CounterStrike.
As a pretty fanatical quake player I feel I need to clarify this comment. Bunny hopping is a side effect of the physics in the quake engine(s) where jumping and side stepping at the same time could give a speed boast. In CS, and the half-life engine in general, bunny hoping only makes you look stupid without offering any extra speed.
Now, if man would actually do it, that would be sad. If you'll recall the end of WWII there are perhaps some people in Japan with reason to be sad then, no?
Man can kill man, but until they do, there is nothing to be sad about.
I beg to differ. Nuclear warheads only have one real application. Their sole purpose is to kill, and the only times they've been used they've done a bang up job. I dare say the mere fact that men feel the need to build such weapons is reason enough for sorrow.
If you go ahead and actually read Genesis 7, instead of listening to what your minister/priest told you
Alright, let's do that, here are Genesis 7 verses 2-3:
2: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3: Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
In one version, "God" asks for two of every animal, and they go on the ark two by two... In this version, seven pairs of animals are to be loaded up
Following your advice and actually reading Genesis 7 there is no disparity in the accounts. 7 of every clean animal and the birds, two of every unclean animal.
the rains kept up for 150 days
Here is what Genesis really says if you read it: Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. Genesis 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
It seems pretty clear, the rain continued for 40 days and 40 nights. The flood waters took 150 days to dry up. No disparity here either.
And what kind of bird brings back the olive branch proving the land is appearing again? A raven
And here is the point where I call foul and ask who mislead your post. I can't honestly believe someone who read Genesis 8 could mis-read it and understand a Raven brought back the olive branch.
Genesis 8: 7-8 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; Gensis 8: 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
I strongly suspect your above post was inspired by an article you saw somewhere which attempted to discredit the flood account with the 'inconsistencies' you mention. The problem is reading Genesis 7-8 as a whole will not give these misconceptions. Only a deliberate mis quotation of snipetts. I'd go further than your suggestion of not believing what your pastor says the Bible says, and advise not to believe what anyone else says it says. Including my quotations above. Go read it yourself and see who is telling the truth about what it really says.
Nor did the cause of such religious connontations become later the three crusades of cannabilistic slaughter where women and children were killed without mercy while begging to be spared. Yep, real nice religion you got there.
And I suppose by the same logic the idea of evolution is responsible for Hitler's pursuit of a super race. Crackpots will do evil things in the name of almost anything, that doesn't mean the cause they claim is responsible for their actions. Understatement:Cannablisitic slaughter, for example, is never condoned by the bible. In fact, if memory serves, Jesus teachings usually frowned on such practices.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been studied, and it is shown that by spraying 90% wiht pesticides or herbicides, and leave 10% of the original population untouched, the poison tends to be effective for a longer period (up to 10 years longer on the same pest). The only issue is, is that 10% of the harvest needs to be sacrificed to the pest.
And this is why farmers widely hate "advice" from scientists and researchers. If you leave 10% of a grasshopper or army worm infestation untouched you lose not 10% but 100%. Growing up on a farm I've seen it plenty to know leaving part of a field unsprayed with pesticides can be as futile as not spraying at all. For that matter I've seen the need to spray the same crop more than once to stop a pest that was widespread in an area. Herbicides are another matter.
Look up Satanism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica if you don't believe me..."Satanism" as you describe it doesn't exist outside of fiction. I'm not terribly surprised that you have no idea what I'm talking about, but before continuing this conversation, why don't you look it up for yourself?
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "also called Devil Worship - worship of Satan, or the devil, the personality or principle regarded by the Judeo-Christian tradition as embodying absolute evil in complete antithesis to God...Satanic cults have been documented in Europe and America as far back as the 17th century"
Take your own advise and look it up yourself, or of course no-one will have any idea what your talking about.
Why don't you address my point instead of quibbling over my sig?
Because the questions you used to make your point where rhetorical and implied answers obviously not held by most religions. If you really aren't familiar with those answers, here you go.
Do religious people really think that some supreme being decides what should and should not happen for each and every one of the current 6.5 billion people on Earth 24x365?
It of course depends on the religion, but in chrisitanity the answer is no.
Long Answer: Christians believe that everything happens according to God's plan, but that does not preclude human free will. I think of it this way(flaws can be found in any analogy but if you try you should get my point).
If God is outside of time then human beings can have free will and God simply set the initial conditions of the world such that everything would play out according to his plan. God being able to "see" the end result of those initial conditions can take into consideration the cumulative impact of billions of individual's free will. I'm not sure what agreement there is on God's level of direct intervention inbetween the beginning and end of time.
What if a child contracts a fatal-if-untreated disease? By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die. Who are you to go against God's will and try to save the child's life with modern medicine? (This is, in fact, what some of those "no modern medicine" religions believe.)
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is just a combination of two questions:
1.If God is in control, why do bad things happen to good people.
2.If God is in control, we should not interfere with things like modern medicine.
Answer 1: Human free-will comes with no restrictions, even to the point of the freedom to do bad things to other people or to put ourselves and loved ones at risk (child getting sick from unknown conditions).
Answer 2: If you try and understand the christian perspective I gave on free-will then you should see that acting on that free-will is a good thing. It is actually according to God's plan, not against it. This trivially includes studying the world and learning to cure sickness with modern medicine.
If you where trying to address the fairness of children suffering/dying you will have to settle for God's promise to make things even post-mortum in Heaven. Again all the above replies are specific to Christianity but it is at least one religion and is logically consistent in it's philosophies on the questions you used. Whether you like the answer's is up to you.
By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die
--
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I guess assuming and inferring is good for the goose and not the gander? I think your also confused on the difference between an analogy and a strawman argument.
Do you think that individuals who are attempting to make a profit running a business or service are somehow exempt from these moral obligations you're so fond of?
If not, then how can you justify the folks at google making a huge, huge pile of money (to paraphrase you) "collecting information that is buried on the net in one place and publishing it"?
Google doesn't publish anything outside their own business related information. Personal information for say, myself is published by my place of work, school, etc. Google let's me search the content published by my place of work, school, etc. That's why it is called a search engine and not a publisher/content provider. Anyone reading
but all fundamentalists are acting in the name of religion.
Not to nit-pick but I feel the need to clarify that even people who consider themselves to have no religous affiliation at all can still be fundamentalists. I think it would be more accurate to say all fundamentalists act in the name of an ideal or dogma. Environmental fundamentalists would subscribe to what religion? You could argue that they are acting with religous devotion to some ideal, but you wouldn't really consider them to be acting in the name of religion.
Then again maybe I'm just playing too much on the ambiguities and/or double meanings inherent in the wonderful english language.
Impossible according to whom? Are you saying that one quote can't be interpreted a certain way because of the way other quotes are interpreted? Sounds like things are getting messy.
"for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23
The interpretation isn't messy at all. The Bible point blank states that everyone is imperfect, all have sinned.
"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."Mathew 5:44-48
Here is the proper context where we are told to be perfect. There is again nothing messy between this verse and Romans 3:23. The 2 passages give the simple idea that we are to strive to be perfect like god, even though we will come up short.
Yep, it's a really high bar to reach. But even if someone was slowly crucifying you, the example is that we should "forgive them for they know not what they do".
Actually, I'd argue that email works in a very mail like way, even when it's being used against the recipient.
Say someone sends you a letter. You open it, read the pretty coloured card inside, and toss it in the bin. Thing is, you are now infected (through your skin and breathing ultra fine dust) with the infectious agent that was impregnated on the card. You now spread that virus to your family and friends by close contact (spreading on a lan).
Executable code need not be distributed by email. In that sense, email is broken for end users. Users are currently forced to deal with recieving unknown executable code. The parent is observing that knowing how to handle unknown executable code is not something that should be expected of general email users. This is the first time I have seen such a wonderfully concise explanation of what is wrong with email, and the right direction to go in 'fixing it'.
Now, email of course doesn't need fixing in the sense that it doesn't work as intended. It needs fixing in the sense that 95% of current email users expect email to work much differently than it was originally intended. This isn't the IT world's fault, but seeing as it is now our problem changing/fixing it seems a pretty good idea.
So many of these "hobbiest" websites like Anandtech and Tom's are just the blind leading the blind with gross misrepresentations that end up being taken as gospel by those who don't know any better
Toms' Hardware and Anandtech are two of the best hardware review site's I have found. Their broader coverage reviews(game reviews, divx) may not be as thorough, but I'm curious which sites you would suggest over these two for unbiased hardware reviews and hardware industry news. Most every non-hobbiest hardware review site I have found rarely fails to praise the newest test board they have received. Not to mention pushing a strong buy reccomendation over 5% performance gains on parts twice as expensive as their 95% slower predecessors.
The link you posted to Hot_britney_sex_video.exe must be /.'ed, any mirrors?
>You haven't visited Guantanamo, obviously...
You haven't visited China, obviously...
You haven't visited Abu Ghraib, obviously...
If something is genetically human or not does not make a morally relevany difference unless you take a speciecist position claiming that species membership is morally relevant in itself. No defense of that position has to my knowledge been presented.
It is nonetheless signifying that almost everyone makes a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals, and that this is never questioned even in an article on a topic which so obviously leads us to question what differentiates humans and non-human animals. It indicates that in our time few take the interest of animals seriously,
The moral distinction between humand and non-human animals is made because WE ARE HUMAN. We consider our own lives and the lives of our fellow humans to be of greater importance than those of other animals. If two humans and a cow are stranded on an island who's going to get eaten first? Morally we look out for each other before animals. I would turn your question back on you and ask what is wrong about taking such an ethical stance?
Looking at humans as superior does not imply that we should torture other animals. We can declare ourseleves superior and promote the humane treatment of animals at the same time. We sit uncontestedly at the top of the food chain(unless you'd like to count virii,bacteria),we've been to the moon, we have art and culture. When training a chimp or Gorilla to interact at the level of a 5 year old human is consider a massive undertaking, what does that say about our relative mental capabilities? There seems to be plenty of reason to believe that at a bare minimum our capabilities as humans are superior to those of other creatures. Why must such an observation require that we not still treat other animals with respect and dignity?
Given that the earth is warming, and that this warming will cause catastrophes in excess of anything we've seen,
Your 'givens' are the issue being debated. If we take it as a given that your position is right, then of course arguing against that position makes no sense.
But Professor Higgins also sees philosophical implications in the work... Science is about trying to understand where we come from, what our purpose is.
;)
Religion is about trying to understand what our purpose is. Anyone claiming science is for said purpose has merely made a religion for themselves out of science. Science is the accumulation of information using the scientific method. Repeat after me, science is in no way meant to be a search for our purpose as humans. Class dismissed.
The rest of the world can't seem to manage its own economy (see europe, and basically anywhere else that isn't the US, China, or South Korea).
:)
Is a $0.5 trillion defict proper management of an economy? How about the mass exodus of tech jobs to India?
The rest of the world takes a calculated blind eye on terrorism, knowing that America will probably be the target
You mean the rest of the world that suffers from daily suicide bombings? It's been what, 3 years now since the last attack on American soil?
and/or come to the defense of anyone hit hard.
And whether they like it or not.
The rest of the world doesn't set much of an example for everyone else to follow.
It is the stubborn American idea of setting such an example that is the source of most the world's resentment of it. Sovereign nations other than America are every bit as competent and capable of managing themselves properly. Shockingly, that even involves doing things differently than America.
Foreign nations are quite justified in feeling insulted when americans tell them there own policies are wrong. When America plans it's foreign policy around changing the policies of other nations, it's small wonder those nations are resentfull.
Withint 7 years after the Americans elect the antichrist for president.
Yeah, I know the argument abt Direct3D being better (and I agree with it)
I'm afraid I'm a little less familiar with that argument. The only advantage that D3D has had over OpenGL is it's support for pixel/vertex shading. And even that has been for the last what, two years? And Doom3's intensive use of shaders is done through which API again? I won't go into the argument further. If you want more info look up quotes from Carmack on the subject.
1984 was science fiction, unless you are a literature snob who believes otherwise.
You must be referring to George Orwell. 1984 may be sci-fi but his non sci-fi work has been equally influential(Animal Farm?).
One of the great things about sci-fi as a thematic backdrop (be it literature or movies/tv) is that it alone of all the genres has the possibility of inspiring a tangible effect upon the real world.
I think that is a very narrow view of literature. I doubt anyone would claim religous literature has not had a tangible effect upon the real world. In fact this extends to almost any 'classic' literature. It is difficult to bring to mind much literature deemed to be 'classical' which has NOT had a tangible effect upon the real world. George Orwell, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, all non sc-fi authors who's works have had an arguably much larger impact on the real world than any sci-fi.
You also need to remember this is in Canada. Up here we don't worry too much about things getting to warm. Mother nature does a remarkably good job of keeping everything up here frigid.
bunnyhopping jerkweeds you find in games like CounterStrike.
As a pretty fanatical quake player I feel I need to clarify this comment. Bunny hopping is a side effect of the physics in the quake engine(s) where jumping and side stepping at the same time could give a speed boast. In CS, and the half-life engine in general, bunny hoping only makes you look stupid without offering any extra speed.
Now, if man would actually do it, that would be sad.
If you'll recall the end of WWII there are perhaps some people in Japan with reason to be sad then, no?
Man can kill man, but until they do, there is nothing to be sad about.
I beg to differ. Nuclear warheads only have one real application. Their sole purpose is to kill, and the only times they've been used they've done a bang up job. I dare say the mere fact that men feel the need to build such weapons is reason enough for sorrow.
If you go ahead and actually read Genesis 7, instead of listening to what your minister/priest told you
... In this version, seven pairs of animals are to be loaded up
Alright, let's do that, here are Genesis 7 verses 2-3:
2: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3: Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
In one version, "God" asks for two of every animal, and they go on the ark two by two
Following your advice and actually reading Genesis 7 there is no disparity in the accounts. 7 of every clean animal and the birds, two of every unclean animal.
the rains kept up for 150 days
Here is what Genesis really says if you read it:
Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
It seems pretty clear, the rain continued for 40 days and 40 nights. The flood waters took 150 days to dry up. No disparity here either.
And what kind of bird brings back the olive branch proving the land is appearing again? A raven
And here is the point where I call foul and ask who mislead your post. I can't honestly believe someone who read Genesis 8 could mis-read it and understand a Raven brought back the olive branch.
Genesis 8: 7-8 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
Gensis 8: 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
I strongly suspect your above post was inspired by an article you saw somewhere which attempted to discredit the flood account with the 'inconsistencies' you mention. The problem is reading Genesis 7-8 as a whole will not give these misconceptions. Only a deliberate mis quotation of snipetts. I'd go further than your suggestion of not believing what your pastor says the Bible says, and advise not to believe what anyone else says it says. Including my quotations above. Go read it yourself and see who is telling the truth about what it really says.
Nor did the cause of such religious connontations become later the three crusades of cannabilistic slaughter where women and children were killed without mercy while begging to be spared. Yep, real nice religion you got there.
And I suppose by the same logic the idea of evolution is responsible for Hitler's pursuit of a super race. Crackpots will do evil things in the name of almost anything, that doesn't mean the cause they claim is responsible for their actions. Understatement:Cannablisitic slaughter, for example, is never condoned by the bible. In fact, if memory serves, Jesus teachings usually frowned on such practices.