* The US provides military hardware to Israel in its 50 year crusade to ethnically cleanse the "holy land" of Muslims and make that area a Jewish state with Jerusalem as it's capital. (This is called Zionism)
Uhuh. Allegations aside, we keep our treaties. Doubtless we'd be a far better country if we ignored all our treaties we entered into with other contries.
Why shouldn't the Jews have the city THEY founded thousands of years ago, that was originally their capital, as their capital?
* The US has troops on Saudi soil, land that is holy to Muslims.
Yep, and we were invited their by the Saudi government.
* Because we are so much more powerful militarily they can't attack us head-on.
That *was* a head-on attack. There was no difference between what they did, and if they had launched a couple cruise missiles at us.
It's important for Americans to understand what this is really about.
I'll tell you what it's all about: It's about borders, language, and culture.
The islamic extremists want to kill us because we do not worship Allah in the way they say is right.
They want to kill us because of our language.
They want to kill us because we let our women walk around with their faces, and *OMG* skin exposed.
They want to kill us simply because we exist in our own way.
They want to kill us because we uphold our promise to Israel that we made half a century ago.
This has nothing to do with our generalized foreign policy. They don't want us to change that, they want us to die.
Do you really think that if we cut off Israel from our aid, that the islamic extremists would simply stop?
Maybe they would, after all of America converted to islamic extremists.
I don't know where you're from, but over here, they DO extract methane from the landfill, and they use it to run a generator, and generate electricity for a small town whose main industry is a Foster Farms chicken plant.
Hah! I don't think a 1541 is fast enough to handle that!
My Apple II, on the other hand, you just insert the disk and flip the power, and the NASASHUTTLE program comes up automatically, in 1/10th the time your C= disk drive loads it!
Of course, your version has better sound, and sprite graphics... but oh well.
Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1)
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2)
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Under (1), IANAL, but if you ask me, avoiding paying for movies or music when it is justly called for is getting "private financial gain," as in, your pocketbook is a little thicker because YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR IT.
Let me spell it out in big, bold letters: THE LAW SAYS THAT ARTISTS AND PUBLISHERS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR EVERY COPY... EVERY SINGLE ONE!!! You are violating someones law-given rights when you make illegal copies.
File sharing on p2p networks cannot and will not get you in jail under current law.
Under (2) most movie and music pirates I know have exceeded the $1000 mark many times over. That IS a criminal offense.
Sharing 66 CDs worth of music or 40-50 movies in six months will most certainly fall under that statute. Personally, I've met someone with over 150 GIGABYTES of illegally copied music and movies. If he can do it, there are a lot more people out there who can do it.
Note that sharing a mere 11 copies of Windows XP Home violates this law, and just a few copies XP Professional.
When I was in high school, I watched someone violate this statute when they made a copy of 3D Studio 4.0. The retail price was several thousand dollars. In addition, I've seen more copies of pirated AutoCAD than you'd ever imagine.
Don't worry, though, I don't ever expect you to admit you are wrong. You'd need a conscious for that.
The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. Here's why: http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
That paper makes a good case, and is correct, but don't forget that language is a dynamic thing, and changes over the years. Compare Old English and Middle English to Modern English. Compare American, British and Australian Englishes, as well.
Virii (which I prefer based on visual aesthetics, though it isn't consistent with fungi) or viri is in common use now, and I suspect the etymologists will pick that up fairly soon.
steal: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etd.) without right or acknowledgement.
I'll stop there. (Props to Second Edition Random House dictinary for allowing me the priveledge of citing their definitions)
Under steal(1), intellectual property infringement steals someone's right to exclusivity. Also, the mere existence of a copy devalues the original work, thus taking (without right) the artist and publisher's profit. Under steal(2), plainly visible. That describes I.P. theft to a T.
Thus, it *is* in the dictionary. You are wrong.
You won't admit it though. But, you'd better find a new way to justify your crime. Oh, and look up crime in the dictionary while you're at it.
Kymermosst, I hope I haven't misrepresented your position, but I'm concerned about your lack of faith.
I don't think I have a lack of faith. The reason I haven't asked the mountain to throw itself into the sea is, because I'm afraid it'll happen, and that scares me. Just remember, we're on he same side, and I'm not out to convert people away from creationism, really. I just think that God made science, and also made a universe of laws, and that He makes those laws consistent.
The universe could only be 6000 years old, but it still *looks* billions of years old to science, and I don't think God would have it any other way. He made us to conquer the stars, and the better we understand them, the better our chances are at doing it.
Just one question: Why did God create the universe so that all scientific applications and measurments make it *look* like it's billions of years old? The methodology is not broken, if the universe's basic mechanism is unchanged, e.g. the speed of light has always been the same.
If He created it looking that way, than for all scientific intents and purposes, this is exactly how it is. Billions of years old.
If I bring up the point that light that is millions of years old is reaching the Earth right now, you only have two ways to counter that statement.
1. The speed of light is not constant. This is not likely since the universe has to work within the rules that were set for it.
2. God created the light in-flight and made it appear that old. Scientifically, this makes the light *that old* even if, under God's frame of reference, it is newer. So, explain?
Furthermore, on your literal view of creation and tying it in to the death and ressurection of Jesus, I will point out that nobody saw the Creation happen, but thousands of people witnessed the events in the New Testament, that's why it can be taken as literal.
You want to argue with Jesus? Jesus didn't have to read Genesis to know about creation; He was there! He is part of the Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That has no bearing on this. Jesus didn't touch on the topic of the Creation at all. Just like he didn't talk much about masturbation.
You must know the Bible, my friend. The best commentary and study aid of the Bible is the Bible itself. If you interpret the Bible through the worldview of Bible-haters, you are bound to end up with some "very interesting" interpretations
Actually, I used to be a fundamental creationist, too, and then I realized that fretting about how the world got here is really not worth it. Focusing on how we got here is really irrelevant, what's important is *why* we are here.
So tell me, do you think we should kill all the homosexuals in the world, or carry on God's command to destroy the infidels in the promised land?
-- or -- Do you think we should carry out Jesus' command against putting anyone to death as a punishment? ("He who has no sin cast the first stone.")
The main point I am arguing is, if it looks like a banana, smells like a banana, and tastes like a banana, it's likely a banana.
One thing is, the process of Creation isn't core to a Christian's belief. The Creation, as described in Genesis, is pretty much irrelevant. If it had been eliminated when the Bible was put together, you'd never have noticed. It's not a central issue, and questioning or invalidating the Creation doesn't destroy Christianity. Don't feel so threatened.
Remember, that the translations into English are not always accurate as they are in the original language, and in the original Hebrew, it is possible to interpret the description of the Creation in a way that indicates that it took six days for God to reveal the Creation to Moses, not that it took six days for God to do it.
But this really is about interpretation, ien't it? Keep in mind that many so-called Christians interpret the bible in very interesting ways.
As a Christian who Actually Thinks (TM) I am going to take issue with several of your arguments:
The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days.
That's one interpretation. The other is that God took six days to reveal the creation to Moses (who wrote Genesis) and took the seventh day off, more to let Moses rest and deal with the magnitude of information he had received, than to rest himself (Why does an omnipotent being need rest???)... waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon.
That fails to explain (1) Dinosaur footprints on some of the layers. The flood took 40 days and nights, right? Well, there was a lot more walking on the sands than 40 days and nights would allow. In addition, there is no evidence of trapped water in most of the layers in that area, and there are also periods of organic development. It can be shown that most of the layers of sands were deposited in a dry climate, not a soaking wet one. In addition, the entire structure of the sand layers in Utah and Arizona is counter to an overwhelming flood. (The Paradox layer, composed of salt, is one.) I argue that the sands got there after any great flooding.
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
You are completely ignoring newer observations of the moon. I suppose you don't know that the moon has a very extremely thin atmosphere, do you? It does, and it's composed of lunar dust that gets kicked up from rocks pelting the surface. Some of that dust escapes into space. Larger inpacts have happened that were perfectly capable of ejecting LOTS of material into space.
You also ignore the fact that the moon has had great lava flows, before it finished cooling, and that would, of course, have covered up previous layers of dust.
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.
Conveniently leaving out the idea that the stars clusters aren't necessarily that old.
Saturn?s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.
Nobody has ever suggested that Saturn's rings must be billions of years old. All it would take is for the right comet/asteroid/whatever getting stuck there and being crushed by tidal forces.
The decaying magnetic field limits earth?s age to less than billions.
Not if the core is composed of fissionable materials. You are not paying kind to modern theories.
Since you are just pointing out speculations and things that ignore other associated circumstances, I'll pick and choose the ones I know most about:
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.
How long did it take to make the cave? Don't forget eartquakes. Also, the same process that makes stalactites can easily take them away when more water goes through them. Many caves don't have stalactite/stalagmite structures at all.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.
There is also evidence that this is cyclical and related to climate cycling and oceanic conveyors.
Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)
If it never melted in the meantime, and if deposit rates were consistent, and if the material of the airplane didn't tend to absorb more solar heat and therefore melt the ice around it and sink.
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)
If people always reproduced at their current (alarming) rate, and there were no war or plague.
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)
Not necessarily correct. In addition, you forget that Homo spp. existed without keeping records before then, and many modern-era cultures still hadn't developed written communications on their own when Columbus stubled on America.
That's about it for me. I think I've refuted enough of the claims you took from obviously extremely biased sources.
You give Christians like me a bad name, and are of the same band that goes out on the street corners and tell people that we need to kill homosexuals because the law God gave to Hebrews said we should. I, like most Christians, am not a Hebrew, and am not bound to their law. I'm bound to Jesus' law.
True, but my wife also likes gems. She's big into geology/gemology, so it was still appropriate.
At any rate, we honeymooned in Reno. It's a good place for that.
The nice thing about a traditional wedding is all the fine gifts, and my parents got us a spa room in the El Dorado for four nights. Ahhh that was nice.
I gave one to her... 1/3 ct, near-flawless (VVS2), I-colored stone... but the color isn't yellow, it's grey. When put next to similar, yellow-trended diamonds, it looks great.
My advice is to buy the stone loose, and pay a good jewler to put it on a ring. Always make sure you can inspect the stone before you commit the money.
Overall, the final ring with the wedding bands looks really nice, and believe me, she let me know it was worth buying it for her:)
This M$ campaign sounds like some of the local pro-choice (abortion) ads that are running here attempting to turn the governor's race into a single-issue race.
Actually, what I said was the truth... the Dark Sky people weren't the only ones lobbying, but they certainly put in their two cents. I also didn't say that they were lobbying city council officials throughout American, I said they were doing it here. I can't speak for the rest of America.
This is the final paragraph in a local newspaper, an article specifically about the IDA's efforts here:
The International Dark-Sky Association in Tucson, Ariz. (http://www.darksky.org/ ) has played a key role in lobbying for outdoor lighting regulations locally, and around the world. The group recently put a detailed "Lighting Code Handbook" on its Web site. According to the introduction, "Careful and considered use of lighting at night, using light only when it is really needed, where it is needed, and as much as is needed and no more, would unblanket the stars in all but the largest cities."
I figure I don't need to type the entire article. It appeared on Monday, July 27th in the Bend Bugle.
At any rate, the stupid ordinance says that if a neigbor can see the actual light bulb/direct emission source/whatever, than the light is illegal. Furthermore, no lights were grandfathered in. Everyone in the county has to change.
It is complete and utter bullshit to the point that you can't even have a porch light light your porch, really, unless it is via recessed lighting.
And, yes, the Dark Sky Association was certainly involved in working up the ordinance. They were there. The local newspaper ran the article, and I am pretty sure they weren't lying.
It STILL doeesn't matter. The county streetlights are exempt from the direct light rule, so you have plenty of those shining all over the place. In addition, it seems that big industry (mills, factories, etc.) seem to be exempt, too.
The point the society is trying to make is that 50%-70% of the light from outdoor lighting is wasted (points to the sky, not the ground). This causes light pollution and doubles electricity bills. Their solution has been to design alternate lighting fixtures that fit ordinary light poles.
And rather than using education to accomplish their goals, they prefer to buy off local city and county council members to enact stupid light-ordinances, so that now, in my area, not only can lights not shine into the sky, they also can't have direct rays on your neighbor's property, nor can you get waivers for security lighting. Of course, none of the ordinances apply to streetlights... funny that.
Thanks Dark Sky Association. Congratulations on your lobbying successes.
I didn't say that the STDs would be eliminated, I said they "would, for the most part, go away if promiscuity was eliminated"
I was suggesting eliminating one of the major causes, not that elimination of STDs would occur. Of course they would still persist, but the incident rate would be *MUCH* lower.
She had other problems, as well. I've not had a history (up until I met my soon-to-be-in-two-weeks wife) of choosing good, wholesome women.:)
Re:What are these people's problems?
on
Piers Anthony Unbound
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
the question I have is: why shouldn't they
Because, people are generally irresponsible, especially when they are young, for one. People also seem to have a problem with accepting the consequences of their actions, or considering the consequences of their actions on others.
You gave two of the damn good reasons not to have sex as a teenager (or irresponsible adult): Unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
You mentioned the use of "proper protection." Name one thing besides abstinence that protects you 100% against both STDs and unwanted pregnancy?
I can offer an example of a woman I knew (dated). When I'd met her, she had already had an abortion, and had gotten genital warts (HPV) at the age of 15. Genital warts are incurable, you know. Needless to say, I broke off the relationship after this came to light. Thing is, it took almost six months for her to tell me about it, and I still had to figure it out from hints and crap. She would never have told me outright. Anyway, she also said that she was using "protection" at the time. When she got HPV, her partner had a condom on, and when she got pregnant, she was on the pill. So much for two of the most popular "protections."
Good thing I didn't have sex with her, even after six months, eh? Transmission rate of HPV even when condoms are used is pretty damn high.
You realize, of course, that STDs would, for the most part, go away if promiscuity was eliminated? Also, your nemesis the Christian Coalition would be a lot happier if less abortions happened due to irresponsible sex. Just my take on the whole subject, and yes, I've had sex. (Even a one-night stand.)
No. Tourney's weren't that big then, and quite often there was only good money for the first few places, and sometimes some hardware. I've got my fair share of id software hats and tee-shirts, though:)
All in all, semi-pro gaming was, at best a good hobby.:)
Getting a life and a wife certainly didn't help much, either:)
Slashdot Mirror
The public landfill near the city I used to live just straight-out burned the gas, for no other purpose than to prevent uncontrolled explosions later.
That's probably a good idea, even if they aren't using the residual heat.
* The US provides military hardware to Israel in its 50 year crusade to ethnically cleanse the "holy land" of Muslims and make that area a Jewish state with Jerusalem as it's capital. (This is called Zionism)
Uhuh. Allegations aside, we keep our treaties. Doubtless we'd be a far better country if we ignored all our treaties we entered into with other contries.
Why shouldn't the Jews have the city THEY founded thousands of years ago, that was originally their capital, as their capital?
* The US has troops on Saudi soil, land that is holy to Muslims.
Yep, and we were invited their by the Saudi government.
* Because we are so much more powerful militarily they can't attack us head-on.
That *was* a head-on attack. There was no difference between what they did, and if they had launched a couple cruise missiles at us.
It's important for Americans to understand what this is really about.
I'll tell you what it's all about: It's about borders, language, and culture.
The islamic extremists want to kill us because we do not worship Allah in the way they say is right.
They want to kill us because of our language.
They want to kill us because we let our women walk around with their faces, and *OMG* skin exposed.
They want to kill us simply because we exist in our own way.
They want to kill us because we uphold our promise to Israel that we made half a century ago.
This has nothing to do with our generalized foreign policy. They don't want us to change that, they want us to die.
Do you really think that if we cut off Israel from our aid, that the islamic extremists would simply stop?
Maybe they would, after all of America converted to islamic extremists.
I don't know where you're from, but over here, they DO extract methane from the landfill, and they use it to run a generator, and generate electricity for a small town whose main industry is a Foster Farms chicken plant.
If they had a website, I'd link it for you.
Hey, I've still got an Apple IIgs set up and running.
Speaking of Apple IIs and shuttles, the GraFORTH forth compiler came with a 3D shuttle animation. It was pretty cool, even though it was wireframe.
Hah! I don't think a 1541 is fast enough to handle that!
My Apple II, on the other hand, you just insert the disk and flip the power, and the NASASHUTTLE program comes up automatically, in 1/10th the time your C= disk drive loads it!
Of course, your version has better sound, and sprite graphics... but oh well.
(a) Criminal Infringement. -
Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1)
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2)
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Under (1), IANAL, but if you ask me, avoiding paying for movies or music when it is justly called for is getting "private financial gain," as in, your pocketbook is a little thicker because YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR IT.
Let me spell it out in big, bold letters: THE LAW SAYS THAT ARTISTS AND PUBLISHERS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR EVERY COPY... EVERY SINGLE ONE!!! You are violating someones law-given rights when you make illegal copies.
File sharing on p2p networks cannot and will not get you in jail under current law.
Under (2) most movie and music pirates I know have exceeded the $1000 mark many times over. That IS a criminal offense.
Sharing 66 CDs worth of music or 40-50 movies in six months will most certainly fall under that statute. Personally, I've met someone with over 150 GIGABYTES of illegally copied music and movies. If he can do it, there are a lot more people out there who can do it.
Note that sharing a mere 11 copies of Windows XP Home violates this law, and just a few copies XP Professional.
When I was in high school, I watched someone violate this statute when they made a copy of 3D Studio 4.0. The retail price was several thousand dollars. In addition, I've seen more copies of pirated AutoCAD than you'd ever imagine.
Don't worry, though, I don't ever expect you to admit you are wrong. You'd need a conscious for that.
Have you seen the ones on an AN/TPQ-37 FireFinder radar. Some of them are several inches in diameter.
The ones for my LCU were a little tamer, but sometimes getting those damn connectors locked is a real pain.
The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. Here's why: http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
That paper makes a good case, and is correct, but don't forget that language is a dynamic thing, and changes over the years. Compare Old English and Middle English to Modern English. Compare American, British and Australian Englishes, as well.
Virii (which I prefer based on visual aesthetics, though it isn't consistent with fungi) or viri is in common use now, and I suspect the etymologists will pick that up fairly soon.
You're American, right?
You're a bigot, right?
Thanks for assuming that most (all?) Americans think the way the person in the parent to your post does.
Prejudiced ass.
stealing: 1. the act of a person who steals
steal: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etd.) without right or acknowledgement.
I'll stop there. (Props to Second Edition Random House dictinary for allowing me the priveledge of citing their definitions)
Under steal(1), intellectual property infringement steals someone's right to exclusivity. Also, the mere existence of a copy devalues the original work, thus taking (without right) the artist and publisher's profit.
Under steal(2), plainly visible. That describes I.P. theft to a T.
Thus, it *is* in the dictionary. You are wrong.
You won't admit it though. But, you'd better find a new way to justify your crime. Oh, and look up crime in the dictionary while you're at it.
Kymermosst, I hope I haven't misrepresented your position, but I'm concerned about your lack of faith.
I don't think I have a lack of faith. The reason I haven't asked the mountain to throw itself into the sea is, because I'm afraid it'll happen, and that scares me.
Just remember, we're on he same side, and I'm not out to convert people away from creationism, really. I just think that God made science, and also made a universe of laws, and that He makes those laws consistent.
The universe could only be 6000 years old, but it still *looks* billions of years old to science, and I don't think God would have it any other way. He made us to conquer the stars, and the better we understand them, the better our chances are at doing it.
Just one question: Why did God create the universe so that all scientific applications and measurments make it *look* like it's billions of years old? The methodology is not broken, if the universe's basic mechanism is unchanged, e.g. the speed of light has always been the same.
If He created it looking that way, than for all scientific intents and purposes, this is exactly how it is. Billions of years old.
If I bring up the point that light that is millions of years old is reaching the Earth right now, you only have two ways to counter that statement.
1. The speed of light is not constant. This is not likely since the universe has to work within the rules that were set for it.
2. God created the light in-flight and made it appear that old. Scientifically, this makes the light *that old* even if, under God's frame of reference, it is newer.
So, explain?
Furthermore, on your literal view of creation and tying it in to the death and ressurection of Jesus, I will point out that nobody saw the Creation happen, but thousands of people witnessed the events in the New Testament, that's why it can be taken as literal.
You want to argue with Jesus? Jesus didn't have to read Genesis to know about creation; He was there! He is part of the Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That has no bearing on this. Jesus didn't touch on the topic of the Creation at all. Just like he didn't talk much about masturbation.
You must know the Bible, my friend. The best commentary and study aid of the Bible is the Bible itself. If you interpret the Bible through the worldview of Bible-haters, you are bound to end up with some "very interesting" interpretations
Actually, I used to be a fundamental creationist, too, and then I realized that fretting about how the world got here is really not worth it. Focusing on how we got here is really irrelevant, what's important is *why* we are here.
So tell me, do you think we should kill all the homosexuals in the world, or carry on God's command to destroy the infidels in the promised land?
-- or --
Do you think we should carry out Jesus' command against putting anyone to death as a punishment? ("He who has no sin cast the first stone.")
I'm getting really sick of this.
Well, I'm a theistic evolutionist.
The main point I am arguing is, if it looks like a banana, smells like a banana, and tastes like a banana, it's likely a banana.
One thing is, the process of Creation isn't core to a Christian's belief. The Creation, as described in Genesis, is pretty much irrelevant. If it had been eliminated when the Bible was put together, you'd never have noticed. It's not a central issue, and questioning or invalidating the Creation doesn't destroy Christianity. Don't feel so threatened.
Remember, that the translations into English are not always accurate as they are in the original language, and in the original Hebrew, it is possible to interpret the description of the Creation in a way that indicates that it took six days for God to reveal the Creation to Moses, not that it took six days for God to do it.
But this really is about interpretation, ien't it? Keep in mind that many so-called Christians interpret the bible in very interesting ways.
As a Christian who Actually Thinks (TM) I am going to take issue with several of your arguments:
... waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon.
The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days.
That's one interpretation. The other is that God took six days to reveal the creation to Moses (who wrote Genesis) and took the seventh day off, more to let Moses rest and deal with the magnitude of information he had received, than to rest himself (Why does an omnipotent being need rest???)
That fails to explain (1) Dinosaur footprints on some of the layers. The flood took 40 days and nights, right? Well, there was a lot more walking on the sands than 40 days and nights would allow. In addition, there is no evidence of trapped water in most of the layers in that area, and there are also periods of organic development. It can be shown that most of the layers of sands were deposited in a dry climate, not a soaking wet one. In addition, the entire structure of the sand layers in Utah and Arizona is counter to an overwhelming flood. (The Paradox layer, composed of salt, is one.) I argue that the sands got there after any great flooding.
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
You are completely ignoring newer observations of the moon. I suppose you don't know that the moon has a very extremely thin atmosphere, do you? It does, and it's composed of lunar dust that gets kicked up from rocks pelting the surface. Some of that dust escapes into space. Larger inpacts have happened that were perfectly capable of ejecting LOTS of material into space.
You also ignore the fact that the moon has had great lava flows, before it finished cooling, and that would, of course, have covered up previous layers of dust.
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.
Conveniently leaving out the idea that the stars clusters aren't necessarily that old.
Saturn?s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.
Nobody has ever suggested that Saturn's rings must be billions of years old. All it would take is for the right comet/asteroid/whatever getting stuck there and being crushed by tidal forces.
The decaying magnetic field limits earth?s age to less than billions.
Not if the core is composed of fissionable materials. You are not paying kind to modern theories.
Since you are just pointing out speculations and things that ignore other associated circumstances, I'll pick and choose the ones I know most about:
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.
How long did it take to make the cave? Don't forget eartquakes. Also, the same process that makes stalactites can easily take them away when more water goes through them. Many caves don't have stalactite/stalagmite structures at all.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.
There is also evidence that this is cyclical and related to climate cycling and oceanic conveyors.
Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)
If it never melted in the meantime, and if deposit rates were consistent, and if the material of the airplane didn't tend to absorb more solar heat and therefore melt the ice around it and sink.
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)
If people always reproduced at their current (alarming) rate, and there were no war or plague.
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)
Not necessarily correct. In addition, you forget that Homo spp. existed without keeping records before then, and many modern-era cultures still hadn't developed written communications on their own when Columbus stubled on America.
That's about it for me. I think I've refuted enough of the claims you took from obviously extremely biased sources.
You give Christians like me a bad name, and are of the same band that goes out on the street corners and tell people that we need to kill homosexuals because the law God gave to Hebrews said we should. I, like most Christians, am not a Hebrew, and am not bound to their law. I'm bound to Jesus' law.
Thanks for playing.
Haiku to stop spam?
Oh! But what a dream this is!
Too bad it won't work.
Reading my mail
Checking for signal inside
see NO CARRIER
Waste time on Slashdot
Using extra brain power
To make bad poems
True, but my wife also likes gems. She's big into geology/gemology, so it was still appropriate.
At any rate, we honeymooned in Reno. It's a good place for that.
The nice thing about a traditional wedding is all the fine gifts, and my parents got us a spa room in the El Dorado for four nights. Ahhh that was nice.
Well, one of the things is, it's damn hard to chip or scratch a diamond. Once she's got it, it's not going to get broken.
That's a big plus, especially for my wife, who tends to break and scratch her non-diamond gems quite often.
I gave one to her... 1/3 ct, near-flawless (VVS2), I-colored stone... but the color isn't yellow, it's grey. When put next to similar, yellow-trended diamonds, it looks great.
:)
My advice is to buy the stone loose, and pay a good jewler to put it on a ring. Always make sure you can inspect the stone before you commit the money.
Overall, the final ring with the wedding bands looks really nice, and believe me, she let me know it was worth buying it for her
This M$ campaign sounds like some of the local pro-choice (abortion) ads that are running here attempting to turn the governor's race into a single-issue race.
All very fascinating, socially.
Actually, what I said was the truth... the Dark Sky people weren't the only ones lobbying, but they certainly put in their two cents. I also didn't say that they were lobbying city council officials throughout American, I said they were doing it here. I can't speak for the rest of America.
This is the final paragraph in a local newspaper, an article specifically about the IDA's efforts here:
The International Dark-Sky Association in Tucson, Ariz. (http://www.darksky.org/ ) has played a key role in lobbying for outdoor lighting regulations locally, and around the world. The group recently put a detailed "Lighting Code Handbook" on its Web site. According to the introduction, "Careful and considered use of lighting at night, using light only when it is really needed, where it is needed, and as much as is needed and no more, would unblanket the stars in all but the largest cities."
I figure I don't need to type the entire article. It appeared on Monday, July 27th in the Bend Bugle.
At any rate, the stupid ordinance says that if a neigbor can see the actual light bulb/direct emission source/whatever, than the light is illegal. Furthermore, no lights were grandfathered in. Everyone in the county has to change.
It is complete and utter bullshit to the point that you can't even have a porch light light your porch, really, unless it is via recessed lighting.
And, yes, the Dark Sky Association was certainly involved in working up the ordinance. They were there. The local newspaper ran the article, and I am pretty sure they weren't lying.
It STILL doeesn't matter. The county streetlights are exempt from the direct light rule, so you have plenty of those shining all over the place. In addition, it seems that big industry (mills, factories, etc.) seem to be exempt, too.
Instead, normal Americans are the ones paying.
The point the society is trying to make is that 50%-70% of the light from outdoor lighting is wasted (points to the sky, not the ground). This causes light pollution and doubles electricity bills. Their solution has been to design alternate lighting fixtures that fit ordinary light poles.
And rather than using education to accomplish their goals, they prefer to buy off local city and county council members to enact stupid light-ordinances, so that now, in my area, not only can lights not shine into the sky, they also can't have direct rays on your neighbor's property, nor can you get waivers for security lighting. Of course, none of the ordinances apply to streetlights... funny that.
Thanks Dark Sky Association. Congratulations on your lobbying successes.
I didn't say that the STDs would be eliminated, I said they "would, for the most part, go away if promiscuity was eliminated"
I was suggesting eliminating one of the major causes, not that elimination of STDs would occur.
Of course they would still persist, but the incident rate would be *MUCH* lower.
I'm pretty sure.
:)
She had other problems, as well. I've not had a history (up until I met my soon-to-be-in-two-weeks wife) of choosing good, wholesome women.
the question I have is: why shouldn't they
Because, people are generally irresponsible, especially when they are young, for one. People also seem to have a problem with accepting the consequences of their actions, or considering the consequences of their actions on others.
You gave two of the damn good reasons not to have sex as a teenager (or irresponsible adult): Unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
You mentioned the use of "proper protection." Name one thing besides abstinence that protects you 100% against both STDs and unwanted pregnancy?
I can offer an example of a woman I knew (dated). When I'd met her, she had already had an abortion, and had gotten genital warts (HPV) at the age of 15. Genital warts are incurable, you know. Needless to say, I broke off the relationship after this came to light. Thing is, it took almost six months for her to tell me about it, and I still had to figure it out from hints and crap. She would never have told me outright. Anyway, she also said that she was using "protection" at the time. When she got HPV, her partner had a condom on, and when she got pregnant, she was on the pill. So much for two of the most popular "protections."
Good thing I didn't have sex with her, even after six months, eh? Transmission rate of HPV even when condoms are used is pretty damn high.
You realize, of course, that STDs would, for the most part, go away if promiscuity was eliminated? Also, your nemesis the Christian Coalition would be a lot happier if less abortions happened due to irresponsible sex.
Just my take on the whole subject, and yes, I've had sex. (Even a one-night stand.)
No. Tourney's weren't that big then, and quite often there was only good money for the first few places, and sometimes some hardware. I've got my fair share of id software hats and tee-shirts, though :)
:)
:)
All in all, semi-pro gaming was, at best a good hobby.
Getting a life and a wife certainly didn't help much, either