I was going to say check out MoSync: http://www.mosync.com/ but I just noticed that the website is down and their twitter, facebook and github haven't been updated in months. Actually the mosync domain won't resolve. Some googling tells me that they have gone bankrupt.
They did have a cross-platform C++ api for Android and iPhone and an html5 interface as well, which is their wormhole technology which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.
This is full of them. And before you say that it is a creation journal and doesn't count, do you really think that the evolutionary-biased scientific journals are going to publish creationist articles, even if they are brilliant papers?
> Irreducible complexity So how did the first cell evolve? It had to be a self-replicating living organism with a membrane, nucleus, organelles, etc all working with all the complex chemical reactions going on. Even if one could somehow come to exist, if it can't self-replicate, it's doomed to die along with the whole of the resultant civilizations depending on it!
Richard Dawkins, since he has no answers, likes to say that nobody knows how it came to be. Perhaps it came from outer space. Doesn't the same problem exist no matter how long and far away you like to push the problem? An obvious solution is that the theory is wrong, or it would take a miracle.
> We can argue these points on slashdot, religious people can counter argue and millions will read and judge for themselves -all very evolved.
You are making this statement through your "evolutionary glasses". I could say that it is because of how we were created... in the image of God with a mind, intellect and the ability to reason.
> Maybe they should also teach them that 2+2=7 In essence, that is what evolution teaches. If you are going to teach it, tell the WHOLE truth including the controversies.
Well if the schools, want to teach evolution, they need to also teach the controversies with it, not just paint a rosy picture that it is infallible, because otherwise that is deception and not teaching the kids to think critically. Trust us. We are scientists. It's completely true! (Hogwash.)
What? There are creationist scientists who reject evolution? They must be mad! Don't listen to them!!
Easy. Chapter 1 says the were both created on the same day, not at the same time. Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman) on that day.
Slashdot Mirror
While kexi is not currently available for Windows (though apparently it does build on Windows), in the meantime you could run it in a Ubuntu vm inside Virtualbox, until it is available again in Windows. When it is, you can download it from http://www.kogmbh.com/download...
You can. It's call "easy" mode. Just add a "-y" option.
I was going to say check out MoSync: http://www.mosync.com/ but I just noticed that the website is down and their twitter, facebook and github haven't been updated in months. Actually the mosync domain won't resolve. Some googling tells me that they have gone bankrupt.
They did have a cross-platform C++ api for Android and iPhone and an html5 interface as well, which is their wormhole technology which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.
http://creation.com/journal-of...
This is full of them. And before you say that it is a creation journal and doesn't count, do you really think that the evolutionary-biased scientific journals are going to publish creationist articles, even if they are brilliant papers?
> Irreducible complexity
So how did the first cell evolve? It had to be a self-replicating living organism with a membrane, nucleus, organelles, etc all working with all the complex chemical reactions going on. Even if one could somehow come to exist, if it can't self-replicate, it's doomed to die along with the whole of the resultant civilizations depending on it!
Richard Dawkins, since he has no answers, likes to say that nobody knows how it came to be. Perhaps it came from outer space. Doesn't the same problem exist no matter how long and far away you like to push the problem? An obvious solution is that the theory is wrong, or it would take a miracle.
> We can argue these points on slashdot, religious people can counter argue and millions will read and judge for themselves -all very evolved.
You are making this statement through your "evolutionary glasses". I could say that it is because of how we were created... in the image of God with a mind, intellect and the ability to reason.
> Maybe they should also teach them that 2+2=7
In essence, that is what evolution teaches. If you are going to teach it, tell the WHOLE truth including the controversies.
http://creation.com/journal-of...
Well if the schools, want to teach evolution, they need to also teach the controversies with it, not just paint a rosy picture that it is infallible, because otherwise that is deception and not teaching the kids to think critically. Trust us. We are scientists. It's completely true! (Hogwash.)
What? There are creationist scientists who reject evolution? They must be mad! Don't listen to them!!
Evolution. Teach the controversy.
Open it with vim, put this text at the bottom:
# vim: set cryptmethod=blowfish:
Then type:
It will prompt you for the password twice and voila! Instant encrypted database. Vim Heaven.
Actually there were many geologists at the time who opposed the rejection of the flood and other assumptions being made about geology.
You could say that modern biblical geologists have proven the flood, or it may be more correct to say, "have much evidence to support it".
Easy. Chapter 1 says the were both created on the same day, not at the same time. Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman) on that day.