Unless somehow supported otherwise (such as the telephone and cable companies are^H^H^Hwere), monopolies tend to break up after about 15 years or so simply because after growing lethargic, some upstart company turns the business on its head and the old monopoly fails to respond.
The ftp utility included with Windows NT is BSD ftp. Seriously, run strings on it... you'll find "Copyright 1983 the Board of Regents of the University of California".
The proposition is not unscientific. It's obviously a possibility, and logically speaking, one that can't easily be denied.
By "scientific" I meant a hypothesis that can be disproven. Postulating either a God separate from the universe or a metauniverse is fine, but the existence of either can neither be conclusively proven nor conclusively disproven by the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, refinement, etc.).
The KJV is not the only translation. The one I referenced was the New International Version.
The assumption is that someone who truly has faith will live that faith out and that his faith will be evinced in his actions. Someone who claims to live by the grace of Christ but who does not pass that grace on to others is not, in fact, living by it. Deeds are not a criterion but rather a natural expression of faith.
Sheesh... Criticisms correct! I don't know quite what was happening with my brain there. I think I somehow managed to confuse Maxwell with Planck.(?!?) Open mouth, insert foot. BTW, moderators, you can mod my message back down now.
Humans who are born with extra or missing genes almost always have serious physiological problems (such as Down's syndrome) and are quite often sterile. In this way, abnormal gene constructions are weeded out.
For the argument with dog breeds: this would be an excellent argument in favor of macroevolution. Unfortunately, no documented cases of this speciation have ever been found. Scientists have spent careers trying to produce this effect with fruit flies--and they do everything possible to separate gene trees--but have still not succeeded.
(This may come across as begging the question; if so, please ask for clarification).
The universe cannot explain itself. There is no reason why the universe should exist. On the other hand, had the universe always existed, how can you explain the fact that the stars still shine? The fusion of hydrogen which powers the stars is irreversable. At some point, the universe will run out of fuel. Unless some unobserved restoring force is invoked, an infinitely old universe should have run down an infinitely long time ago. In contrast, the God of Judeo-Christianity simply exists--that is his identifying characteristic. He exists outside of our cause-and-effect universe and so does not a demand a cause of his own.
As for a metauniverse containing the universe: this proposition is as unscientific as saying that God created the universe. While possibly true, it is unverifiable, and any belief in one must be take on faith.
For the first "contradiction": A better translation of the Hebrew in chapter 2 is as a perfect-tense construction "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." [NIV, emphasis added] It is providing context and clarification.
For the second: I would refer you to the second chapter of the book of James. James clarifies this apparent paradox by pointing out that faith is all that is required, but that true faith and obedience to God's will will produce outward evidence; i.e., people who honestly try to live by the teachings of Jesus will perform "good deeds" as a natural consequence. To quote Martin Luther, "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."
The answer to this question is one that atheists typically don't like: God was not created. The name that he gave himself in the Old Testament means "I am." He always has existed and always will exist; the mere fact that a finite mind cannot comprehend infinite time makes no difference.
I'm listening to a CD right now. CD audio samples at 44.1KHz with 16-bit resolution. All digital, yet a vast opportunity for difference is possible. And still, each sample is simply a 16-bit number representing an intensity level. There's no way that gradual renormalizing or what-have-you of this signal will ever produce a signal strength of 131072--it's simply not possible within the CD's range of expression. Organisms have vast possibilites for shades of differences, but limits exist; as far as all human knowledge can say, the fertile offspring of an animal of a specific species will always be of the same species.
I am a creationist (I believe that God controlled the formation of the universe and everything in it). I don't claim to know exactly how all that was accomplished, so I'll wait until more evidence comes to light before either supporting or attacking macroevolution.
As for why I am a creationist, the answer is that I am a Christian. My life experiences and studies of many religions and religious literatures have convinced me that Christianity (pure Christianity, not to be confused with the oppressive and dogmatic sects that have at various times emerged) is true. This, however, is a personal belief and cannot be scientifically proven or disproven as it by definition involves a being outside of the observable universe. That given, though, God should not be invoked to explain away anything uncomfortable. Science has produced much evidence in favor of the big-bang theory, and until it is overturned, I will support it. When someone can persuade me that speciation is a viable method for producing the earth's many life forms, I will support it.
That may be the problem with some creationists. Some Muslims, though, believe that all non-Muslims should be forcibly converted or slaughtered. I disagree with Islam, but painting all Muslims as savage butchers is hardly accurate. Just because some creationists are bigots doesn't mean all are.
Darwin did not renounce his evolutionary theory. That is a common myth.
The age of the earth can be inferred from the very strong cosmological evidence supporting the inflationary big-bang theory. While this says nothing about macroevolution, there is little or no scientific evidence for the "young earth." Read _Show Me God_ by Fred Heeren for a neutral treatment of this.
Hold on, now, this is "insightful"?!? Did somebody miss the "troll" button? I am a creationist myself, and I subscribe to the big-bang theory because it has a vast amount of supporting evidence. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has not been persuasively presented to me, so I'm withholding judgment on the physical origin of life until someone from either camp can make a reasonable argument.
Once again, we have two ships passing in the night.
I don't know anyone--even the most dogmatic of Christians--who denies microevolution--the alteration of an organism within its genetic bounds. Body sizes change, beak chapes change, but the underlying organism is still of the same species. Macroevolution requires that different descendants of one organism become different species (i.e., can't breed). No documented cases of speciation have yet been found.
BTW, Darwin's idea of "gradual change" that produced drastically different species came out a short time before the first genetic discoveries. It is doubtful that he would have published his books ten years later. Darwinian evolution is analog, genetics is digital. The two aren't compatible.
Go away, troll. HTML is by definition open-source. And anyone has permission to quote anything of mine with credit--in this context, it would be considered "fair use."
I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested. They are considered reliable until disproven.
While such constructs as the big-bang theory have been calculated and tested and refined, macroevolution as such has not been scientifically proven or even proven to be plausible. As of now, no plausible method for speciation (the separation of one species into two) has been proposed, and not one single instance of it has ever been documented. Decades of concerted efforts to create new species from fruit flies, for instance, have been completely unable to do so--and this was guided as opposed to the chaotic forces of nature.
All that this proves is that Carolus Linnaeus was right when he classified humans as primates along with monkeys and gorillas. This apparently completely uninformed commentary ignores the "Bible-thumper" response that of course the gene sequences would be similar--the body of a human is quite similar to that of a chimp. The assembly instructions for a Suburban would look a lot like those of a Durango. (Note that I am arguing neither for nor against Darwinistic evolution, simply saying that this article is mostly irrelevant.)
2) If you're afraid about your software, use BSD... Plus, BSD usually has better performance than Linux in a networking environment. I feel Linux is more approachable to new users, but many more servers run BSD.
"I am sure to use not only a BSD style license but my own language which specifies what I consider fair use."
While that does allow you to specify exactly what other people can do with your code, it has the unhealthy side-effect of confusing the community at large. I know what the GPL says, I know what the LGPL says, I know what the BSD license says. I'd rather not have to wade through others' home-brewed licenses to figure out what's going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless somehow supported otherwise (such as the telephone and cable companies are^H^H^Hwere), monopolies tend to break up after about 15 years or so simply because after growing lethargic, some upstart company turns the business on its head and the old monopoly fails to respond.
The ftp utility included with Windows NT is BSD ftp. Seriously, run strings on it... you'll find "Copyright 1983 the Board of Regents of the University of California".
A typical method would be the use of or maybe and the appropriate </ > tag.
Patents have to be non-obvious and innovative... this is merely a natural extension of the *truly* innovative Winamp skins...
The proposition is not unscientific. It's obviously a possibility, and logically speaking, one that can't easily be denied.
By "scientific" I meant a hypothesis that can be disproven. Postulating either a God separate from the universe or a metauniverse is fine, but the existence of either can neither be conclusively proven nor conclusively disproven by the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, refinement, etc.).
The KJV is not the only translation. The one I referenced was the New International Version.
The assumption is that someone who truly has faith will live that faith out and that his faith will be evinced in his actions. Someone who claims to live by the grace of Christ but who does not pass that grace on to others is not, in fact, living by it. Deeds are not a criterion but rather a natural expression of faith.
I've also gotten these links in another post. I thank both posters for this information.
Sheesh... Criticisms correct! I don't know quite what was happening with my brain there. I think I somehow managed to confuse Maxwell with Planck.(?!?) Open mouth, insert foot. BTW, moderators, you can mod my message back down now.
Humans who are born with extra or missing genes almost always have serious physiological problems (such as Down's syndrome) and are quite often sterile. In this way, abnormal gene constructions are weeded out.
For the argument with dog breeds: this would be an excellent argument in favor of macroevolution. Unfortunately, no documented cases of this speciation have ever been found. Scientists have spent careers trying to produce this effect with fruit flies--and they do everything possible to separate gene trees--but have still not succeeded.
(This may come across as begging the question; if so, please ask for clarification).
The universe cannot explain itself. There is no reason why the universe should exist. On the other hand, had the universe always existed, how can you explain the fact that the stars still shine? The fusion of hydrogen which powers the stars is irreversable. At some point, the universe will run out of fuel. Unless some unobserved restoring force is invoked, an infinitely old universe should have run down an infinitely long time ago. In contrast, the God of Judeo-Christianity simply exists--that is his identifying characteristic. He exists outside of our cause-and-effect universe and so does not a demand a cause of his own.
As for a metauniverse containing the universe: this proposition is as unscientific as saying that God created the universe. While possibly true, it is unverifiable, and any belief in one must be take on faith.
For the first "contradiction": A better translation of the Hebrew in chapter 2 is as a perfect-tense construction "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." [NIV, emphasis added] It is providing context and clarification.
For the second: I would refer you to the second chapter of the book of James. James clarifies this apparent paradox by pointing out that faith is all that is required, but that true faith and obedience to God's will will produce outward evidence; i.e., people who honestly try to live by the teachings of Jesus will perform "good deeds" as a natural consequence. To quote Martin Luther, "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."
Non sequitur and begging the question.
The answer to this question is one that atheists typically don't like: God was not created. The name that he gave himself in the Old Testament means "I am." He always has existed and always will exist; the mere fact that a finite mind cannot comprehend infinite time makes no difference.
I'm listening to a CD right now. CD audio samples at 44.1KHz with 16-bit resolution. All digital, yet a vast opportunity for difference is possible. And still, each sample is simply a 16-bit number representing an intensity level. There's no way that gradual renormalizing or what-have-you of this signal will ever produce a signal strength of 131072--it's simply not possible within the CD's range of expression. Organisms have vast possibilites for shades of differences, but limits exist; as far as all human knowledge can say, the fertile offspring of an animal of a specific species will always be of the same species.
I am a creationist (I believe that God controlled the formation of the universe and everything in it). I don't claim to know exactly how all that was accomplished, so I'll wait until more evidence comes to light before either supporting or attacking macroevolution.
As for why I am a creationist, the answer is that I am a Christian. My life experiences and studies of many religions and religious literatures have convinced me that Christianity (pure Christianity, not to be confused with the oppressive and dogmatic sects that have at various times emerged) is true. This, however, is a personal belief and cannot be scientifically proven or disproven as it by definition involves a being outside of the observable universe. That given, though, God should not be invoked to explain away anything uncomfortable. Science has produced much evidence in favor of the big-bang theory, and until it is overturned, I will support it. When someone can persuade me that speciation is a viable method for producing the earth's many life forms, I will support it.
That may be the problem with some creationists. Some Muslims, though, believe that all non-Muslims should be forcibly converted or slaughtered. I disagree with Islam, but painting all Muslims as savage butchers is hardly accurate. Just because some creationists are bigots doesn't mean all are.
Troll.
But since you claim to be open-minded, please present a direct biblical contradiction, and I will respond.
Hold on, now, this is "insightful"?!? Did somebody miss the "troll" button? I am a creationist myself, and I subscribe to the big-bang theory because it has a vast amount of supporting evidence. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has not been persuasively presented to me, so I'm withholding judgment on the physical origin of life until someone from either camp can make a reasonable argument.
Go ahead and mod this down, too, but at least take down lambda's 9:26 comment while you're at it. sheesh...moderators...
Once again, we have two ships passing in the night.
I don't know anyone--even the most dogmatic of Christians--who denies microevolution--the alteration of an organism within its genetic bounds. Body sizes change, beak chapes change, but the underlying organism is still of the same species. Macroevolution requires that different descendants of one organism become different species (i.e., can't breed). No documented cases of speciation have yet been found.
BTW, Darwin's idea of "gradual change" that produced drastically different species came out a short time before the first genetic discoveries. It is doubtful that he would have published his books ten years later. Darwinian evolution is analog, genetics is digital. The two aren't compatible.
Go away, troll. HTML is by definition open-source. And anyone has permission to quote anything of mine with credit--in this context, it would be considered "fair use."
I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested. They are considered reliable until disproven.
While such constructs as the big-bang theory have been calculated and tested and refined, macroevolution as such has not been scientifically proven or even proven to be plausible. As of now, no plausible method for speciation (the separation of one species into two) has been proposed, and not one single instance of it has ever been documented. Decades of concerted efforts to create new species from fruit flies, for instance, have been completely unable to do so--and this was guided as opposed to the chaotic forces of nature.
All that this proves is that Carolus Linnaeus was right when he classified humans as primates along with monkeys and gorillas. This apparently completely uninformed commentary ignores the "Bible-thumper" response that of course the gene sequences would be similar--the body of a human is quite similar to that of a chimp. The assembly instructions for a Suburban would look a lot like those of a Durango. (Note that I am arguing neither for nor against Darwinistic evolution, simply saying that this article is mostly irrelevant.)
1) GPL'd software is not public domain... *ahem*
2) If you're afraid about your software, use BSD... Plus, BSD usually has better performance than Linux in a networking environment. I feel Linux is more approachable to new users, but many more servers run BSD.
While that does allow you to specify exactly what other people can do with your code, it has the unhealthy side-effect of confusing the community at large. I know what the GPL says, I know what the LGPL says, I know what the BSD license says. I'd rather not have to wade through others' home-brewed licenses to figure out what's going on.