It amazes me that there is even any need to fax patient information at all in the UK. They have had centrally run and managed and funded healthcare since the end of WWII ! I would have thought they would have some terminal text-based records system from the 1980's that was universally deployed. I mean the closest thing I have experienced to the UK system is the US military's system, which has been computerized with centralized records since I was a baby in the 80's (parents were in air force). Sure, there used to be physical records as well, but I remember them being things like x-rays and notes about x-rays, things that you couldn't really digitize at that time. I really doubt they are faxing x-rays, so the UK situation is extremely confusing. WTF is going on there?
When you are ready to retire, give them two weeks notice. If they really need you, they'll find the amount of $$ that makes it worthwhile for you to stay on until they find a replacement. They get what they need, and you get properly paid for your rare skill (finally).
but I think it's not really so evil to organize. This is a system that is getting like 2 to 4 thousand votes, and this so called conservative cabal still didn't get all of their candidates into the final.
We are talking about nothing. This is nothing. This is a world with 7 Billion people in it. The margin of victory in this ballot is like 400 votes.
The short version is, maybe conservatives are 'gaming' this, but the thing they are gaming is completely meaningless. It's a stupid award and nobody should care who wins it. Read what you like, sheeple!
If I were allergic to people who think their personal issue is the whole worlds problem to solve, then by your logic you wouldn't be allowed to post to this site anymore.
Biologically nothing makes any sense. I mean this in the full nihilistic sense, nothing matters to cells and DNA and enzymes, they just follow the rules of physics and chemistry and nothing is better or worse, it's just a bunch of atoms bumping together.
However, evolution has programmed you to care *a whole lot* about your own children, and their children, and so on (but really it's just words past grand children for the most part, there is no biological programming to care about your 125,000 35th generation grandchildren, how could there be)
But then the beauty of the emergent behavior comes in, caring doesn't have to be global, because it is inductive. You care about your children, and they care about theirs, and so on down the line. Everyone is cared for, nobody has to manage to care about all the unborn generations to do a good job of ensuring their progeny will be among them.
This is also where people like Hawking aren't going to make a lot of headway, since we aren't really programmed to automatically feel anxiety about risks to the future of our race. Quick experiment (sorry in advance): Imagine the last ship of humans on it's way to Alpha Centari, the last hope of all of humanity; now imagine it exploding. Now imagine your kid on their way to school tomorrow, and a guy pulls up to them in a van and tells them he needs them to come help find his puppy. Which one made you feel really worried (assuming you have kids)? Now, it turns out he really did lose his puppy, but your kid does the right thing and runs into the school and tells a teacher. There, I let you off the hook, but if you are anything like me, just the thought of someone approaching my child makes me very anxious, but imaging humanity being wiped out in the distant future is the fodder of feel good sci-fi romps.
Please take the time to give us more of your sarcasm and wisdom. You clearly should be giving out advice about nutrition, guy who was 100+ pounds overweight.
Gatorade is strictly bad for you, with the exceptions of dying in a famine, dying of insulin overdose.
Even if you are an endurance athlete, drinking sugar water is bad for you. It can improve performance, but it isn't good for you at all.
Any empty calories are bad for you, unless you are eating too few calories. So if you are in a famine, eat empty calories to top up. You aren't dying of famine, you are overweight. Any empty calories are worse for you than just not eating those empty calories. So any empty calories are too many, for you.
Sugar beverages, soda, gatorade, etc, are only bad for YOU. There is no point in YOUR life where drinking sugar water or eating candy is better for you than not doing so.
I don't know them, but I do know they took the time to have and transcribe a little fit, lashing out at someone for suggesting what is just factually true, that there are better and worse foods in grocery stores and you will be more healthy if you buy and eat the healthy foods.
Having a little fit and lashing out at someone for something so totally non-controversial is coming from something emotionally charged. And I was right, he was in fact overweight and wasn't able to stop eating unhealthy foods, so he ended up basically skipping meals instead.
So you think it's not hypocritical to take issue with people sharing their views, but insist that they conform to your views about not being able to share views?
I mean that is a really dumb and internally inconsistent position to take.
I don't know you, but you seem to get really angry that someone would suggest that it is obvious that you can get healthy food, and that pre-packaged food isn't healthy.
So I am totally with you, if you exercise, you can eat food that is not good for you and lose weight. I mean look at soldiers in basic training, or swimmers, or cyclists, or rock climbers, or anyone who engages in intense physical activity regularly. You'll never find someone who is fat, and lots of people in those groups eat a whole lot of junk food.
That's pretty much besides the point. You are getting really angry at people for saying to "eat healthy food". The fact that you lost 100 pounds tells me that you struggled with being heavier than you wanted. You probably didn't lose the weight on your first try. You probably tried to do things like cut out soda and fast food and other junk food, but you couldn't stick to it. This probably made you upset and led to feelings of shame, as it would for anybody who truly wanted to do something that requires will power, but didn't succeed. You later lost the weight another way, and pretty much there are only two ways to lose weight, healthy diet, or exercise (or both of course).
Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food, because they are 'stupid douchebags', and "who would want to just eat healthy food that is stupid and pointless and if I can get upset enough about someone suggesting it I can stay focused on that and not be hard on myself."
It's ok, nobody has perfect self control, and good for you for finding a way to get to your goal that fit with your personality.
I'm sorry you don't have the willpower to eat good food. I'm sorry. You are still the one that is wrong, even if being reminded of it causes you shame, which causes you to lash out rather than facing your failure.
You can't not have culture, and honestly I would much rather live in Silicon Valley than in London. London is just as expensive as SV, and I guess if you're easily impressed by stuff just because it's man made and old, then that counts as 'culture'? London has two symphonies, which I guess is pretty nice, but also SF has one too and one is plenty.
What I really think is that Jimmy is just talking shit and probably couldn't really explain what he means when he says 'culture', beyond the usual american garbage about 'oh, Europe has so much culture'. This is just an American Abroad's incredibly insightful (and not at all obsequious) little musings about how *amazing* European 'Culture' (old property) is. I hope he gets licked by a Chav.
Plus, I guess you are only talking about white people, because the liberties of every other kind of people are very obviously less eroded than they were in the recent past. I think things like being allowed to marry a white person, or being allowed to buy a house is a pretty important liberty that some groups were denied, by the government, and now the government doesn't deny them those liberties. So that's a pretty big win for liberty.
Blah blah blah, right do not come from governments, blah blah blah. The government can't 'create' rights, I guess, but it sure as hell is the only thing between you and the army of goons that would swoop in and deprive you of your life and property. I'm sure you think that you don't need the government to protect you, right? I mean you could just join together with your neighbors and protect yourselves without the government. But guess what? The 'government' is just all of us joining together to protect ourselves, that's literally all it is. So you can whine about the faceless 'them' coming along and stealing all 'yer liberty', but it's just a bunch talk-show-talking-point agitation propoganda bullshit that has been spoon fed to you and you are just puking back out onto the world without bothering to think about it critically.
Humans long ago decided it was better to band together, because the alternative is to get robbed, murdered, or exploited by whatever gangsters happen to show up and defeat us in detail. We've developed fairly sophisticated ways of getting the good parts of government (protection, contracts, regulated externalized costs) without the bad parts (explicit oligarchy, autocracy, large scale warfare for the personal enrichment of leaders).
So the Nazi's were a large, bureaucratic organization, and despite that it seems like our 'winning strategy' was to kill large numbers of lower level people, and smaller numbers of higher ranking people, and yet it seems to have worked in the end? The claims made by this paper seem very silly.
I doubt it because we would be deluged with holidaying spherians every long weekend. Earth beaches are the best. Also the construction process would have generated a lot of debris. Seriously, it is too close not to be noticed as such. If they were humans there would be trillions of them in there. Even if it was a ringworld sort of thing with a collapsed civilisation, there would be ships coming past and making radio noise, exhaust, etc.
Why do you think you have any idea what we would see or not see?
Imagine you were living with circa 1800 AD technology, and were looking for evidence of another civilization with circa 2014 technology. Keep in mind that this 200 year difference is nothing compared to the difference between modern technology and the technology of a race capable of building a Dyson sphere.
Perhaps you would use a rudimentary telescope to look out to sea. You would rule out any ships, since the weird objects you see don't have sails. If those giant things were ships, the sails would have to be miles across! So of course they are just some other phenomena, but they can't be ships.
Seeing a highway, you would know, obviously, that the things you saw weren't vehicles. Where are the horses? Plus, they are going far too fast. Besides, it couldn't be a road because there aren't any seams, and any road would have to be built from cobble stones. Clearly these are some other phenomena.
Besides, how could cities that far apart communicate effectively without Semaphore Towers? The lack of Semaphore Towers proves there is no way those big things on the horizon are cities. An envelope calculation shows that civilizations of that huge of a size would have to have at least 45000 semaphore towers between them just to negotiate the marriage of members of the royal families! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Plus, if you have a Dyson Sphere, why would you need to send any ships anywhere? To trade? Trade what? Communicate? Why would you use a ship to communicate? If you did send ships, why would they go through our solar system?
For the same reason we still write text-based stories, send text-based emails, text based text messages, etc etc.
There isn't a way to express tree structures directly, without jumping back and forth, so we have settled on (or evolved to) a standard way to linearize such structures, which is called grammar.
There's no advantage to any other representation, but rather there is a huge disadvantage to other representations because our brains have spent the last million or so years evolving to be adept at manipulating language in this way.
The amount of water output by a dehumidifier is proportional to the humidity of the air. Presumably you have a dehumidifier in your basement because it is so humid that the humidity causes problems, that is to say, far more humid than an average kitchen.
I don't see how this is news though, you could just put a cup under the spout on any air conditioner and then sterilize the water.
0. "No one now living will die" -Jesus circa 30AD Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; --John 11:25, meaning Lazerus died, and is alive now alive because of Jesus.
and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"-- John 11:26, meaning that if you are still alive and believe in jesus you won't die in the first place.
The meaning of this passage was changed when Jesus and a bunch of his buddies DID die, and now is taken to mean 'spiritual life' vs 'physical life'. But the meaning is clear if you don't base your reading on the assumption that Jesus is always right.
1. Earth is flat, assumed to be true in the bible. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm Isaiah 11:12 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1 1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13 13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19 19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Matthew 4:8 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
2. Sun revolves around earth How can you deny this one? Galileo was threatened with burning at the stake, by your 'spiritual leaders' of the day, for busting this myth. Christians believed the bible told them that the Sun went around the earth when that was 'common knowledge' and once that was proven wrong they re-read the bible and now they claim that it says the earth moves around the sun. How convenient.
Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth." (Heb. 1:10) "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5) "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them." (I Sam. 2:8)
3. Animals/Woman created AFTER man You got me here, the bible does say god created animals before man. It also says that woman was created out of a rib and that man was created whole, in his present form, without ancestors, out of dirt. Huzzah for magical superpowers.
4. Animals created whole in current form Genesis clearly states that the animals were created in the first week. Trying to sneak in arguments like "But it could have meant God evolved the animals" or other twaddle is just an attempt to make the bibles nonsense relevant in the face of being proven wrong. If that's what the bible 'means', why didn't anybody figure it out before darwin? If this isn't in the bible, why do the fundies insist on teaching it in school? Or is this the beginning of yet another GREAT WEASELING by christians to change the bible to fit what science has proven instead of old wives tales and superstition?
0. "No one now living will die" -Jesus circa 30AD => Proven False 1. Earth is flat => Proven False 2. Sun revolves around earth => Proven False 3. Animals/Woman created AFTER man => Proven False 4. Animals created whole in current form => Proven False
The bible has a pretty bad track record. I wouldn't bet that it's predictions hold true either.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still free to just download everything on bittorrent.
It amazes me that there is even any need to fax patient information at all in the UK. They have had centrally run and managed and funded healthcare since the end of WWII ! I would have thought they would have some terminal text-based records system from the 1980's that was universally deployed. I mean the closest thing I have experienced to the UK system is the US military's system, which has been computerized with centralized records since I was a baby in the 80's (parents were in air force). Sure, there used to be physical records as well, but I remember them being things like x-rays and notes about x-rays, things that you couldn't really digitize at that time. I really doubt they are faxing x-rays, so the UK situation is extremely confusing. WTF is going on there?
When you are ready to retire, give them two weeks notice. If they really need you, they'll find the amount of $$ that makes it worthwhile for you to stay on until they find a replacement. They get what they need, and you get properly paid for your rare skill (finally).
Yes... so they can read..... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
but I think it's not really so evil to organize. This is a system that is getting like 2 to 4 thousand votes, and this so called conservative cabal still didn't get all of their candidates into the final.
We are talking about nothing. This is nothing. This is a world with 7 Billion people in it. The margin of victory in this ballot is like 400 votes.
The short version is, maybe conservatives are 'gaming' this, but the thing they are gaming is completely meaningless. It's a stupid award and nobody should care who wins it. Read what you like, sheeple!
If I were allergic to people who think their personal issue is the whole worlds problem to solve, then by your logic you wouldn't be allowed to post to this site anymore.
This isn't how you are programmed to work.
Biologically nothing makes any sense. I mean this in the full nihilistic sense, nothing matters to cells and DNA and enzymes, they just follow the rules of physics and chemistry and nothing is better or worse, it's just a bunch of atoms bumping together.
However, evolution has programmed you to care *a whole lot* about your own children, and their children, and so on (but really it's just words past grand children for the most part, there is no biological programming to care about your 125,000 35th generation grandchildren, how could there be)
But then the beauty of the emergent behavior comes in, caring doesn't have to be global, because it is inductive. You care about your children, and they care about theirs, and so on down the line. Everyone is cared for, nobody has to manage to care about all the unborn generations to do a good job of ensuring their progeny will be among them.
This is also where people like Hawking aren't going to make a lot of headway, since we aren't really programmed to automatically feel anxiety about risks to the future of our race. Quick experiment (sorry in advance): Imagine the last ship of humans on it's way to Alpha Centari, the last hope of all of humanity; now imagine it exploding. Now imagine your kid on their way to school tomorrow, and a guy pulls up to them in a van and tells them he needs them to come help find his puppy. Which one made you feel really worried (assuming you have kids)? Now, it turns out he really did lose his puppy, but your kid does the right thing and runs into the school and tells a teacher. There, I let you off the hook, but if you are anything like me, just the thought of someone approaching my child makes me very anxious, but imaging humanity being wiped out in the distant future is the fodder of feel good sci-fi romps.
Wow, that is a truly autistic comment. Pretty much spot on and completely accurate though, just very insensitive. But True.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I only responded when he called the GP a douchebag a few times just for suggesting that processed foods are bad for you.
Please take the time to give us more of your sarcasm and wisdom. You clearly should be giving out advice about nutrition, guy who was 100+ pounds overweight.
Gatorade is strictly bad for you, with the exceptions of dying in a famine, dying of insulin overdose.
Even if you are an endurance athlete, drinking sugar water is bad for you. It can improve performance, but it isn't good for you at all.
Any empty calories are bad for you, unless you are eating too few calories. So if you are in a famine, eat empty calories to top up. You aren't dying of famine, you are overweight. Any empty calories are worse for you than just not eating those empty calories. So any empty calories are too many, for you.
Sugar beverages, soda, gatorade, etc, are only bad for YOU. There is no point in YOUR life where drinking sugar water or eating candy is better for you than not doing so.
I look forward to your next rationalization.
I don't know them, but I do know they took the time to have and transcribe a little fit, lashing out at someone for suggesting what is just factually true, that there are better and worse foods in grocery stores and you will be more healthy if you buy and eat the healthy foods.
Having a little fit and lashing out at someone for something so totally non-controversial is coming from something emotionally charged. And I was right, he was in fact overweight and wasn't able to stop eating unhealthy foods, so he ended up basically skipping meals instead.
So you think it's not hypocritical to take issue with people sharing their views, but insist that they conform to your views about not being able to share views?
I mean that is a really dumb and internally inconsistent position to take.
Haha, "Food Taboos".
"Sugar is bad for you, don't drink multiple cans of soda per day"
"Empty calories are bad for you"
I'm sure you getting to be 100+ pounds overweight had nothing to do with the food you ate, right?
I don't know you, but you seem to get really angry that someone would suggest that it is obvious that you can get healthy food, and that pre-packaged food isn't healthy.
So I am totally with you, if you exercise, you can eat food that is not good for you and lose weight. I mean look at soldiers in basic training, or swimmers, or cyclists, or rock climbers, or anyone who engages in intense physical activity regularly. You'll never find someone who is fat, and lots of people in those groups eat a whole lot of junk food.
That's pretty much besides the point. You are getting really angry at people for saying to "eat healthy food". The fact that you lost 100 pounds tells me that you struggled with being heavier than you wanted. You probably didn't lose the weight on your first try. You probably tried to do things like cut out soda and fast food and other junk food, but you couldn't stick to it. This probably made you upset and led to feelings of shame, as it would for anybody who truly wanted to do something that requires will power, but didn't succeed. You later lost the weight another way, and pretty much there are only two ways to lose weight, healthy diet, or exercise (or both of course).
Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food, because they are 'stupid douchebags', and "who would want to just eat healthy food that is stupid and pointless and if I can get upset enough about someone suggesting it I can stay focused on that and not be hard on myself."
It's ok, nobody has perfect self control, and good for you for finding a way to get to your goal that fit with your personality.
I'm sorry you don't have the willpower to eat good food. I'm sorry. You are still the one that is wrong, even if being reminded of it causes you shame, which causes you to lash out rather than facing your failure.
You can't not have culture, and honestly I would much rather live in Silicon Valley than in London. London is just as expensive as SV, and I guess if you're easily impressed by stuff just because it's man made and old, then that counts as 'culture'? London has two symphonies, which I guess is pretty nice, but also SF has one too and one is plenty.
What I really think is that Jimmy is just talking shit and probably couldn't really explain what he means when he says 'culture', beyond the usual american garbage about 'oh, Europe has so much culture'. This is just an American Abroad's incredibly insightful (and not at all obsequious) little musings about how *amazing* European 'Culture' (old property) is. I hope he gets licked by a Chav.
The mantra that our liberties have been going away gradually is often repeated but not at all, or in any way, true.
If you want to talk about domestic spying, how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Plus, I guess you are only talking about white people, because the liberties of every other kind of people are very obviously less eroded than they were in the recent past. I think things like being allowed to marry a white person, or being allowed to buy a house is a pretty important liberty that some groups were denied, by the government, and now the government doesn't deny them those liberties. So that's a pretty big win for liberty.
Blah blah blah, right do not come from governments, blah blah blah. The government can't 'create' rights, I guess, but it sure as hell is the only thing between you and the army of goons that would swoop in and deprive you of your life and property. I'm sure you think that you don't need the government to protect you, right? I mean you could just join together with your neighbors and protect yourselves without the government. But guess what? The 'government' is just all of us joining together to protect ourselves, that's literally all it is. So you can whine about the faceless 'them' coming along and stealing all 'yer liberty', but it's just a bunch talk-show-talking-point agitation propoganda bullshit that has been spoon fed to you and you are just puking back out onto the world without bothering to think about it critically.
Humans long ago decided it was better to band together, because the alternative is to get robbed, murdered, or exploited by whatever gangsters happen to show up and defeat us in detail. We've developed fairly sophisticated ways of getting the good parts of government (protection, contracts, regulated externalized costs) without the bad parts (explicit oligarchy, autocracy, large scale warfare for the personal enrichment of leaders).
So the Nazi's were a large, bureaucratic organization, and despite that it seems like our 'winning strategy' was to kill large numbers of lower level people, and smaller numbers of higher ranking people, and yet it seems to have worked in the end? The claims made by this paper seem very silly.
I doubt it because we would be deluged with holidaying spherians every long weekend. Earth beaches are the best. Also the construction process would have generated a lot of debris. Seriously, it is too close not to be noticed as such. If they were humans there would be trillions of them in there. Even if it was a ringworld sort of thing with a collapsed civilisation, there would be ships coming past and making radio noise, exhaust, etc.
Why do you think you have any idea what we would see or not see?
Imagine you were living with circa 1800 AD technology, and were looking for evidence of another civilization with circa 2014 technology. Keep in mind that this 200 year difference is nothing compared to the difference between modern technology and the technology of a race capable of building a Dyson sphere.
Perhaps you would use a rudimentary telescope to look out to sea. You would rule out any ships, since the weird objects you see don't have sails. If those giant things were ships, the sails would have to be miles across! So of course they are just some other phenomena, but they can't be ships.
Seeing a highway, you would know, obviously, that the things you saw weren't vehicles. Where are the horses? Plus, they are going far too fast. Besides, it couldn't be a road because there aren't any seams, and any road would have to be built from cobble stones. Clearly these are some other phenomena.
Besides, how could cities that far apart communicate effectively without Semaphore Towers? The lack of Semaphore Towers proves there is no way those big things on the horizon are cities. An envelope calculation shows that civilizations of that huge of a size would have to have at least 45000 semaphore towers between them just to negotiate the marriage of members of the royal families! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Plus, if you have a Dyson Sphere, why would you need to send any ships anywhere? To trade? Trade what? Communicate? Why would you use a ship to communicate? If you did send ships, why would they go through our solar system?
For the same reason we still write text-based stories, send text-based emails, text based text messages, etc etc.
There isn't a way to express tree structures directly, without jumping back and forth, so we have settled on (or evolved to) a standard way to linearize such structures, which is called grammar.
There's no advantage to any other representation, but rather there is a huge disadvantage to other representations because our brains have spent the last million or so years evolving to be adept at manipulating language in this way.
The amount of water output by a dehumidifier is proportional to the humidity of the air. Presumably you have a dehumidifier in your basement because it is so humid that the humidity causes problems, that is to say, far more humid than an average kitchen.
I don't see how this is news though, you could just put a cup under the spout on any air conditioner and then sterilize the water.
0. "No one now living will die" -Jesus circa 30AD
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; --John 11:25, meaning Lazerus died, and is alive now alive because of Jesus.
and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"-- John 11:26, meaning that if you are still alive and believe in jesus you won't die in the first place.
The meaning of this passage was changed when Jesus and a bunch of his buddies DID die, and now is taken to mean 'spiritual life' vs 'physical life'. But the meaning is clear if you don't base your reading on the assumption that Jesus is always right.
1. Earth is flat, assumed to be true in the bible.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
2. Sun revolves around earth
How can you deny this one? Galileo was threatened with burning at the stake, by your 'spiritual leaders' of the day, for busting this myth. Christians believed the bible told them that the Sun went around the earth when that was 'common knowledge' and once that was proven wrong they re-read the bible and now they claim that it says the earth moves around the sun. How convenient.
Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth." (Heb. 1:10)
"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5)
"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them." (I Sam. 2:8)
3. Animals/Woman created AFTER man
You got me here, the bible does say god created animals before man. It also says that woman was created out of a rib and that man was created whole, in his present form, without ancestors, out of dirt. Huzzah for magical superpowers.
4. Animals created whole in current form
Genesis clearly states that the animals were created in the first week. Trying to sneak in arguments like "But it could have meant God evolved the animals" or other twaddle is just an attempt to make the bibles nonsense relevant in the face of being proven wrong. If that's what the bible 'means', why didn't anybody figure it out before darwin? If this isn't in the bible, why do the fundies insist on teaching it in school? Or is this the beginning of yet another GREAT WEASELING by christians to change the bible to fit what science has proven instead of old wives tales and superstition?
Claim in bible => True?
0. "No one now living will die" -Jesus circa 30AD => Proven False
1. Earth is flat => Proven False
2. Sun revolves around earth => Proven False
3. Animals/Woman created AFTER man => Proven False
4. Animals created whole in current form => Proven False
The bible has a pretty bad track record. I wouldn't bet that it's predictions hold true either.
What a bunch of crap. She's well enough to run a major corporation, but too sick to go to jail?
It goes to show you that if you're rich, you won't go to jail no matter what.