Robot technology doesn't really grow in leaps and bounds [...] That's 'cos they keep fitting the bally things with caterpillar tracks and not power-jumpers:P
The characters you reference are all in the fiction category. References to Jesus in the early writings don't cast themselves as fiction, but purport to be referring to a real person. So the analogy doesn't match and the burden of proof surely lies with the case for non-existence.
The hassle argument stands AFAICS - why suffer for a pretence? They may have been deluded to the nature of Jesus, (though even then they don't appear to have a fixed opinion early on) but someone's existence is harder to mistake.
You can't get proof for historical events, so within a historical context I'm not sure what proof you would be happy with. Do you disbelieve in all characters who are only referred to in documents of the Classical period? Seems to be an unwarrantably extreme sceptical position. If you are willing to accept the probable existence of other Classical era individuals whose only record is documentary, then why the exception in this case?
The context here is establishing the probability of someone's mere existence. So yes, it can be inferred from the fact that they're referring to a third party and the trouble they got in to because of their beliefs about the third party, that the third party is more likely to have existed than not.
You can't prove historical "facts" one way or the other, all you can do is establish a probabilities from internal and external evidence. Why make all the fuss over Jesus and go through all the hassles if they knew it was all entirely made up? There was a stir be made early on and it had its roots somewhere. Least unlikely scenario is that the itinerant preacher existed.
Quite. Unless and until ID ever looks like flying, it's not suitable for anything other than general discussion, and future research by its proponents. But slagging it off as Creationism-in-sheep's-clothing (as Richard "The Rant" Dawkins does) isn't enough either:)
Pure ID (i.e without the superfluous Creationist baggage) is agnostic about the nature of the designer, other than it requires intelligence.
MichaelBehe is a research biochemist. He's also an Evolutionist with some, to him, cogent questions.
So anyway, why did I use the word paranoid? It seems to me that with notable exceptions*, the Evolutionists I've come across when they're dealing with Creation/Evolution have been badly bitten by the antics of the rabid Creationists. The Evolutionist response to Intelligent Design seems to be disproportionate and often off topic - which looks to be somewhat paranoid about a rabid Creationist resurgence.
I'm not claiming anything for Intelligent Design. It should be dealt with as anything else in a civilized and rational public arena. I am bemoaning the BS from rabid Creationists and rabid Evolutionists alike.
BTW, not all religions do claim to be The One. For that matter, not all religious types are arrogant fools - but perhaps it's the noisy, arrogant fools who get more notice?
* I'd disagree with Steven Jay Gould's premiss in his "Rock of Ages" but it didn't come over as paranoid. Unlike, say, the ranty Dawkins.
Paul's earliest writings (with a decade or so of Jesus' death) reference his face-to-face arguments with still living contemporaries of Jesus who had known Jesus.
Given the New Testament writings require explanation, what is the most likely explanation? That they were entirely made up seems more preposterous than that they had at least a basis in some sort of fact.
You can argue that the writings are an accretion of myths around a much humbler "real" person who was nothing more than an itinerant preacher, but the argument for the non-existence of Jesus just doesn't seem the most plausible.
[Intelligent Design is] a theological debate between people who take the Genesis story literally and those who take it as a metaphor.
Er, no. Michael Behe, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design, is an evolutionist who is on record as believing that the earth is four billion years old. Not exactly a literal interpretation is it?
Yes, of course the Creationists latched on to ID. But that does not affect the Intelligent Design per se. ID requires addressing on its own terms, not those thrust upon it by the Creationists nor those thrust upon it by Evolutionists with their painfully paranoid agenda.
BS from rabid Evolutionists is just as distasteful as BS from rabid Creationists.
And for non-Welsh speakers that's pronounced something almost like: Kethlan-Jones.
Though the sound I've transliterated as 'th' has some of the 'ch' in the Scottish 'loch' too. But "Kechlan-Jones" might be mistaken for "Ketchlan-Jones", which would be even worse:)
Er, sorry, but no. The poster didn't cite the quote, but the formatting implicitly indicates that it comes from a dictionary, in other word from a third-party, authoritative source.
has a tiny font on my 2048x1536 display, and no option to resize the font.
Attention to visual display people. I am part of your potential early market here...
Does a more direct responsibility for medical costs (rather than "free at the point of delivery") lead to later average diagnosis/intervention due to a culture wide reluctance to consult early?
I'd go for the ambient stresses induced by living the American Nightmare increasing susceptibility across the board.
And there we were thinking that we had the higher cost of living...
We use VServer to provide semi-managed environments where we look after the main apps such as apache, postgres, mysql, php etc. in/usr and/opt, and our customers can install whatever else in to/usr/local.
Works well with gradual introduction and deprecation of app versions, though it takes some.spec mods to get several versions of some apps to live happily side-by-side:)
Slashdot Mirror
Given the current crop of hagiographies splurging everywhere for the he-who-must-not-be-named's 200 birthday, this call is too little, too late :P
Given the Greek etymology, we're all wrong anyhow :)
Ouranos == the sky
For all I know it could be an excellent distro with a pedigree as long as your arm but it still has a terrible, terrible name.
Pus: sticky creamy bodily fluid that oozes from sores and spots.
'Republic' from the Latin phrase 'res publica', literally 'public stuff'.
Isn't this merely a point revision? Oh, "revision" not "version". Back to sleep...
The characters you reference are all in the fiction category. References to Jesus in the early writings don't cast themselves as fiction, but purport to be referring to a real person. So the analogy doesn't match and the burden of proof surely lies with the case for non-existence. The hassle argument stands AFAICS - why suffer for a pretence? They may have been deluded to the nature of Jesus, (though even then they don't appear to have a fixed opinion early on) but someone's existence is harder to mistake. You can't get proof for historical events, so within a historical context I'm not sure what proof you would be happy with. Do you disbelieve in all characters who are only referred to in documents of the Classical period? Seems to be an unwarrantably extreme sceptical position. If you are willing to accept the probable existence of other Classical era individuals whose only record is documentary, then why the exception in this case?
Cool. That's well put. Thanks.
You can't prove historical "facts" one way or the other, all you can do is establish a probabilities from internal and external evidence. Why make all the fuss over Jesus and go through all the hassles if they knew it was all entirely made up? There was a stir be made early on and it had its roots somewhere. Least unlikely scenario is that the itinerant preacher existed.
Quite. Unless and until ID ever looks like flying, it's not suitable for anything other than general discussion, and future research by its proponents. But slagging it off as Creationism-in-sheep's-clothing (as Richard "The Rant" Dawkins does) isn't enough either :)
Pure ID (i.e without the superfluous Creationist baggage) is agnostic about the nature of the designer, other than it requires intelligence.
Michael Behe is a research biochemist. He's also an Evolutionist with some, to him, cogent questions.
So anyway, why did I use the word paranoid? It seems to me that with notable exceptions*, the Evolutionists I've come across when they're dealing with Creation/Evolution have been badly bitten by the antics of the rabid Creationists. The Evolutionist response to Intelligent Design seems to be disproportionate and often off topic - which looks to be somewhat paranoid about a rabid Creationist resurgence.
I'm not claiming anything for Intelligent Design. It should be dealt with as anything else in a civilized and rational public arena. I am bemoaning the BS from rabid Creationists and rabid Evolutionists alike.
BTW, not all religions do claim to be The One. For that matter, not all religious types are arrogant fools - but perhaps it's the noisy, arrogant fools who get more notice?
* I'd disagree with Steven Jay Gould's premiss in his "Rock of Ages" but it didn't come over as paranoid. Unlike, say, the ranty Dawkins.
Paul's earliest writings (with a decade or so of Jesus' death) reference his face-to-face arguments with still living contemporaries of Jesus who had known Jesus.
Given the New Testament writings require explanation, what is the most likely explanation? That they were entirely made up seems more preposterous than that they had at least a basis in some sort of fact.
You can argue that the writings are an accretion of myths around a much humbler "real" person who was nothing more than an itinerant preacher, but the argument for the non-existence of Jesus just doesn't seem the most plausible.
Er, no. There are enough writings from early enough to make his existence a lot more probable than that.
The usual trope "better attested than many other accepted ancient individuals" seems to be a reasonable summation.
Don't confuse history with mythology. (All history deals with probabilities alone.)
Now the nature of the individual Jesus referred to in the writings, well, there's an area for discussion. But please, not (non-)existence.
Er, no. Michael Behe, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design, is an evolutionist who is on record as believing that the earth is four billion years old. Not exactly a literal interpretation is it?
Yes, of course the Creationists latched on to ID. But that does not affect the Intelligent Design per se. ID requires addressing on its own terms, not those thrust upon it by the Creationists nor those thrust upon it by Evolutionists with their painfully paranoid agenda.
BS from rabid Evolutionists is just as distasteful as BS from rabid Creationists.
And for non-Welsh speakers that's pronounced something almost like: Kethlan-Jones.
:)
Though the sound I've transliterated as 'th' has some of the 'ch' in the Scottish 'loch' too. But "Kechlan-Jones" might be mistaken for "Ketchlan-Jones", which would be even worse
No the OP typed it in correctly. The text was mutated in transit by a burst of cosmic rays.
No it wouldn't. It would be very nice though :)
Does anyone know why the music is playing? :P
Er, sorry, but no. The poster didn't cite the quote, but the formatting implicitly indicates that it comes from a dictionary, in other word from a third-party, authoritative source.
You did install munin and munin-node?
has a tiny font on my 2048x1536 display, and no option to resize the font. Attention to visual display people. I am part of your potential early market here...
Does a more direct responsibility for medical costs (rather than "free at the point of delivery") lead to later average diagnosis/intervention due to a culture wide reluctance to consult early?
I'd go for the ambient stresses induced by living the American Nightmare increasing susceptibility across the board.
And there we were thinking that we had the higher cost of living...
We use VServer to provide semi-managed environments where we look after the main apps such as apache, postgres, mysql, php etc. in /usr and /opt, and our customers can install whatever else in to /usr/local.
Works well with gradual introduction and deprecation of app versions, though it takes some .spec mods to get several versions of some apps to live happily side-by-side :)
Yup, not much chance at all :P