Why would gold be difficult to manufacture? If you can manufacture anything (i.e diamonds etc) what makes gold exceptional? Real estate (as you suggested) or space in general will be the only thing you cannot build or manufacture.
The autozones around here don't do oil changes - they'll sell you the oil though. Maybe he needs to understand exactly what business they're in before holding out for the oil change;-)
"Huh? What science?" You're right, I have about 3 threads in this story, this one was a cheap jab at a website for christians. The whole point about "ship of fools" has been made abundantly clear.
In the "just due" matter, you are also correct and I may have illustrated more the motivations of most "christians" instead of the teachings of the bible ("most" christians indicating back pew baptists or others who are guilted into attending church due to their fear of God. Attending church and having a belief "in the Lord" assures their right to heaven.). This may not be true, but it is as it is understood. My ex-girlfriend was a "devout" catholic - but couldn't tell you the meaning of John 3:16, or recite it. I believe that to be the average understanding (present company excluded of course).
As a student of the bible goes, at this point my concern is of it's origin and makeup (authors).
I guess you are just as big a moron as the other guy. Why do you accept christ as your saviour? To save you from going to hell. I am refering to those who have fulfilled the requirements to going to heaven. Why is it that since you cannot argue against science that you want to twist semantics to make me sound like I am saying something else?
(Wow, it's amazing how that puts a smile across my face!:-D )
Ignorance is bliss. You base your faith on nothingness, you argue against reason and are blissful in the process. It is pointless to argue with those that choose ignorance. I am reminded of the saying "Never argue with a fool, passersby cannot tell the difference" and to that end, I digress.
Ok, you're right. It was me that started "behaving like a child" with the whole "If you knew anything about Christianity" comment. You're right, I am undeserving to talk to a person of your "adultness". "Like an adult", give me a break, you still believe in fairy tales - aside from completely misunderstanding what I mean about "just due in the end" [i.e. God taking us to heaven].
When you get 2 braincells to rub together (i.e. basing your ideas on facts, basic reading comprehension), let me know and we can continue this.
Micah, I have enjoyed our conversations but find that like other Christians you ignore what you can't explain. Review what I have posted to you in the past, you will see that I have addressed every single one of your arguments adnausem. Gain some understanding of the nature of the Universe, and realize that we are likely not as rare as you think. Your table of statistics can be countered with other statistics. Just start with the Drake equation. A conservative estimate using the Drake equation puts 1000 planets with intelligent (capable of communicating) life IN OUR GALAXY. There is an estimated 125 billion galaxies. Even being extremely conservative and saying one in 10 galaxies has the potential for life, we are still saying there are 12.5 billion planets like ours. Get as conservative as you'd like and you would see that it is just not likely that we are the only life bearing planet in the UNIVERSE. Please, just google for the size of the known universe. Do you really believe being such an infintismal speck on some far flung planet in some average galaxy really suggests with any kind of certainty that we are truly the only life in existence? If you believe this, you are not only uneducated but arrogant as well. Read a book besides your bible, and quit wasting my time until you get some true facts. As long as you argue with me with your bible or some other related text as a source, I will consider your argument flawed.
If you knew anything about me, you'd know I know a lot about christianity. You would know my intentions as a teenager to go to seminary, you would know I've spent hours, days, weeks, researching the Bible. I would wager that I probablty know as much if not more about this ancient text as you do -from a scholars point of view, and a Christians point of view. You would know the first 18 years of my life I spent in church everyday the doors were open. You would know that I would love to embrace christianity if it answered the questions I asked. What do you think Armegeddan is about? What do you think "the meek inheriting the earth" suggests? If you weren't waiting until the end for your just due, why do you need faith now? Do not be so quick to judge hyprocrite.
Wow, you don't see the flaw in that thinking? There are times when there is a need for "faith", but I view it a bit different. When a scientific theory is proposed, it is because EVIDENCE suggests the correctness of the theory. You then systematically try to disprove that theory to make it robust. The Bible is not subject to such scrutiny and is not based in "TRUTH" whatsoever and thus is flawed. The BIble "may" be suggested to be inspired by god, but in fact was written by a man. If I wrote a text today and said "God inspired me", I would be considered a blashphemer, and a nut. What makes something old less worthless? I do understand that it is frivolous to argue with a person of faith. Christian faith teaches that naysayers will come and you should resist the heretics. This being true makes it pointless to continue this conversation.
I find it amazing that out of all the responses to this post, there was not one that said I was wrong, although there have been over 10 mod points used to knock me to zero. Is there a Zionist that can justify their views? Or are all of you going to passive/aggressive(ly) disagree by modding? No wonder diplomacy is done with bombs in Israel. You have no basis for your genocide other than Israeli greed. Please, make me understand your position. Give me the intellectual basis for my err. I have tried to understand - I really wanted to support Israel, I mean we give so much money to you guys and take so much shit because of our support for you, I really wanted to get behind the cause. I am obviously missing the point, because all of the research shows you are murdering bastards. Here, look at these stats:
This is what "God" wants? This is fair? This is fighting terrorism? This is true anti-semitism.
PLEASE make me understand, if I am so wrong, please tell me why so I don't look like such an ass. My aim isn't to hurt, but to find truth and understanding - if I am wrong and you can show me why then I have learned something.
Why is it that anyone who challenges Israel's fucked up policies is immediately labeled an anti-semite? Could it be that noone cares about their religion but the way they thrust themselves on the world. I am very sympathetic to the sufferers of the holocaust - it was an EXTREMELY inhumane action that should have never been able to occur. Truman should also never allowed Israel to be created, displacing all of the Palestinians. He was warned that what is happening now would indeed occur. I understand after the displacement of the Jewish people from Russia etc that it would be desirous to have their own nation. The reality is that this Zionist policy has cost thousands of lives and will ultimately lead to the destruction of the Jewish people (remember, you are a minority in that area. You could kill and kill, but the Arab people will outlast you)
The point is Israel - NOONE CARES WHAT RELIGION YOU ARE - JUST QUIT BEING SUCH ASSHOLES!!! ZIONISM IS INHUMANE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.
Please, no more death to further YOUR people at the expense of others. It is called anti-semetic when someone dislikes Jews, but what is it called when Jews hate everyone else? It is like "White man's guilt" because of slavery. We have "Christian Guilt" due to the holocaust and thus allow Israel to do some very oppresive things. Noone wants to be called anti-semetic for standing up to them. This is not an anti-semetic statement. I have many jewish friends, have dated a few jewish girls and have no problem with jews in general - just Israeli policies. There are also many Jews that completely disagree with Zionist policies. Please, quit trying to say everyone who doesn't agree with you(Israel) is anti-semetic. Get over yourself, you are not the "chosen ones", you're just like everyone else.
i will just say, the crap about the planets is indeed crap. I have no idea where this guy is basing his logic and I am sure that if one was to attepmt to prove the opposite point, it could be done just as easy with similiar but supporting math.
Having said that, the point is moot since all the arguments you make contradicts the pope's understanding of evolution as more than a hypothesis. Argue with me, argue with him as well.
If life is found on Mars or elsewhere will that show you how unrare life really is? Will that shatter your belief system? Will some contort more biblical passages to show how god predicted martitans? Where will your faith be then?
As for faith the size of a galaxy to believe in evolution, I believe there is more tangible evidence for evolution (aside from the simple fact it just makes sense) than any of the conjecture of your beloved Ancient text. Without faith, there really is nowhere to stand on religion ~ the very premise is faith, evolution is based on evidence.
Is it "wise" to have faith in something that is without evidence? The Bible is the only proof and the source of the Bible is not immune from questions about its orgin. Aside from the questions of its origin, the affects of translation by powerful rulers - i.e. King James and his desire to compel the poor to tithe to the church. What about the fact that some books in the original version of the bible are excluded? If your only source of this wisdom is the Bible , you truly are on shakey ground. I know the arguments. I know that the Bible is ancient - so is Homer's Iliad, it doesn't make it true.
I'll give you your point as it is a god one, and I will counter with - if we have made it this far, is it really impractical to believe we are that far away from making life from scratch? Is your point one that says "well, this is as far we can go, the rest is what God made, we should just have faith and not try to understand"?
I don't know where to start. I guess I will just pick your post apart from top to bottom.
gave evidence of the Bible's accuracy, but I think you have pre-determined the kind of evidence that is acceptable to you. If I had to guess, I'd say that you simply don't WANT to believe and would reject pretty much any evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible.
I want to believe. I really wish it was so easy. As a young man I had planned to attend seminary, but those in the church ran out answers before I ran out of questions. This caused them to use the good ol' Christian stand by: Have Faith. I want empirical truth and spend my life in search of truth. I am not some atheist trying to just poo poo everything you say, I just want truth. Shit, even Stephen Hawking isn't an atheist. Having said that, I am not an atheist either. I just believe it is a fallacy to believe (especially knowing what I know about the nature of the Universe) That we have all of the answers in some "Ancient text". For all of the faith you and other Christians have, the very nature of your teachings actually does NOT give God enough credit. To gain understanding of the Universe is to gain a better understanding of God. Contorting Biblical verses to represent God's will is, I believe, a form of blasphemy.
> Saying God created the heavens in the earth does not ACCURATELY suggest there was a big bang.
There are several verses that indicate that the universe has been expanding. Here's a quick search to get a subset of them.
I have no idea how different verses discussing stretched heavens represents accurate information about the big bang. It is just a poetic way of saying "I made this stuff"
Like I said, the Bible isn't meant to have many scientific details, but those that are there are accurate. I can't imagine how Moses would have known on his own that the universe had a beginning, the early earth was void, then eventually watery, the Spirit did something in the waters, then after that light reached the earth. Genesis 1 continues to talk about the formation of the water cycle (day 2) and plate tectonics to form stable continents (day 3). That all matches the understanding of modern science surprisingly well.
Even a young child is aware that nature evolves - such is the nature of nature. Moses was just a human being. It makes sense, and therefore should somehow be represented everywhere. Because Moses had this intuition suggests nothing in the form of proof of God.
Interesting theory. Nice way for atheists to try to avoid the theistic implications of the BB. But like the bottom of the page says, this isn't proven. It maybe avoids a singularity (and thus could pose a problem for Genesis 1:1), but does it really get rid of all theistic implications? How likely is it that the said collision could have happened? And the expansion of the universe would still need to be incredibly fine tuned for any life to exist.
Anyway, I'm not concerned about that idea unless it were proven. It is only attempting to get God's direct hand out of the BB. Since I believe in God, I have no reason to replace the BB, as long as evidence supports it; and it does, overwhelingly.
Also, if the Bible seems to say that the earth is the center of the universe (which I'm not sure that it does, although I know people have implied that from it), keep in mind frame of reference. ANYTHING can be the center of the universe. Same with it saying the sun rises and sets. Our frame of reference is on the earth.
The nature of a scientist is to find truth. There is not some conspiracy to discredit the faithful, the faithful just do not base there faith in empirical truth.
If you truly had a fleeting understanding of how large and old the Universe really is, you would realize that everything is not only possible, but WILL occur at one point or another. No matter how remote the possibilities are, they will occur. I believe the Universe is
As an aside, the hindedburg did not burn due to hydrogen but because of the flammable coating on the outside of the hull. If not for that fact, the incident would have been far less dramtic.
I knew you coudn't do it. Basically you did exactly what I asked you not to - infere the prose in the bible matches current understanding. Saying God created the heavens in the earth does not ACCURATELY suggest there was a big bang. Again no mention of background radiation or gravity. Did you also know that theories suggest there was a big bang but scientists have a problem with a single beginning. What is more likely is a new theory called the Ekpyrotic Model http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/ which suggests a cyclic process - but you didn't dwell on this too much - no facts to support your idea, just supposition so you moved on to the formation of the Earth. The fallacy I find with Christians is an acceptance that this "Ancient text" is the end all of answers. If it wasn't for heretic scientists, we would still believe the Earth was the center of the Universe. Remember that this "ancient text" was used to support Ptolemy - because it was the accepted model at that time (remember Galileo being put on house arrest for heresy because he suggested the earth wasn't the center of the Universe, remember Coprinicus hiding his findings to escape a similiar fate?) How about instead of waiting for the newest theory to come out to conform the interpretation of the Bible you guys do something original? Scientists have already began to create life http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-ne w-life-usat_x.htm, all that is left is evolution which takes time.
There is no accuracy or facts in your post. The bible is vague enough to conform to any new model. You should just have faith that at this moment we DON'T know. This is more plausible than trying to infere scientific "accurancy" from convulted Armenian legends (the old testament was stories told around a camp fire until a hebrew came and translated into the old testament), and the writings of mostly one man (Paul wrote most of the new testament). Again, think for yourself and quit lying to yourself to justify your faith.
The point was that linux serves many purposes aside from sound support and the fact that it doesn't support your soundcard does not make it less relevant. Great!! You enjoy windows on the desktop. I would never put windows on a production server. So take what you will from linux as far as sound - linux has established its place in the server market. It will only be a matter of time until it rules the desktop. Maybe not today, but it is inevitable as long as it remains free.
Just install mandrake. That is one good desktop distro. Seriously. I have installed and tried out many distros, but starting with Mandrake 9.2, I have had very few pieces of hardware that didn't work (aside from my damn scanner / HP 3570c).
Exactly. Which is why this isn't really an issue with Linux - linux works fine given the proper drivers. How many drivers has MS had to reverse engineer inorder to get it compatible with Windows?
All of this is moot anyway. Noone claims Linux is ready for grandma, it's bottom - up evolving - it will get there, especially now that major vendors are rolling out Linux PCs. Linux has proven the most important - stable, secure, reliable. A sound card is gravy. I know I don't need a sound card on my linux dns server, cvs server, webserver, mailserver, firewall - and I wouldn't trust Windows to perform any of those functions reliably. Neither do a majority of others. Fine, condemn Linux because your particular sound card doesn't work - shit I've had similiar problems in the past ( although I always eventually got them to work after much gnashing of teeth), just don't call it Linux's "Achilles Heel" - if Linux NEVER got soundcards to work, I will still run all of my servers with it, and probably still have it as my desktop as well. As far as I am concerned, Linux has been fine for me on the desktop since RH 6.2.
In referance to mandrake, it IS easy. My 8 year old girl installed it with little guidance and my computer illiterate girlfriend prefers it over XP - specifically because of urpmi. I bookmarked sourceforge for her, told her to search there for what she wanted to do (to get the name of a particular app that performs her desired function), then taught her: urpmi.update -a && urpmi appname. She was sold. She was pretty much a clean slate so she had no preexisting notions to get in the way, she just accepted that this is the way things are done and did them.
Sorry, "malicious/erroneous" is subjective. Maybe there would be a default for average users, but as they evolve, they would need to be able to tweak it. Then, how do you decide beyond that? What if you installed gator? It operates as expected, but not as you want. What if I DO want to rm -rf/directory ~ or what if I never want that to happen but don't realize it until it's too late? How can you compensate for human behavior without a human counterpart? It would have to be very low level (protect the OS and BASIC kernel functions) or have very sophisticated AI to learn your habits. Until it was taught however, it could get quite ugly. It would almost need to read your mind and predict the future from the point of install. Code it up and sell it to MS, you'll be a insanely rich. Good luck;-)
Accurate? Give me a break. You can only infere accuracy the way Nostradomas's predictions are considered accurate. Once an event occurs, you can refer to the writings and make the words conform to any event. I beseech you to offer ONE accurate example about the formation of the Universe - not some supposition that you glean to fit a scientifically proven fact. I know the book of Geniuses. And I have never seen any information in the book about background radiation from the big bang or anything related to gravity. I would consider a tome with "a LOT" of information regarding this subject to at least mention the relevance of gravity in the formation of the Universe instead of prose that Christians have twisted in interpretation to match scientific facts - like King James did to encourage tithing.
Please, prove me wrong. No gobblygook, just a smidgen of "accurate" information.
Slashdot Mirror
In an undisclosed location of course.
Why would gold be difficult to manufacture? If you can manufacture anything (i.e diamonds etc) what makes gold exceptional? Real estate (as you suggested) or space in general will be the only thing you cannot build or manufacture.
The autozones around here don't do oil changes - they'll sell you the oil though. Maybe he needs to understand exactly what business they're in before holding out for the oil change ;-)
"Huh? What science?"
You're right, I have about 3 threads in this story, this one was a cheap jab at a website for christians. The whole point about "ship of fools" has been made abundantly clear.
In the "just due" matter, you are also correct and I may have illustrated more the motivations of most "christians" instead of the teachings of the bible ("most" christians indicating back pew baptists or others who are guilted into attending church due to their fear of God. Attending church and having a belief "in the Lord" assures their right to heaven.). This may not be true, but it is as it is understood. My ex-girlfriend was a "devout" catholic - but couldn't tell you the meaning of John 3:16, or recite it. I believe that to be the average understanding (present company excluded of course).
As a student of the bible goes, at this point my concern is of it's origin and makeup (authors).
I guess you are just as big a moron as the other guy. Why do you accept christ as your saviour? To save you from going to hell. I am refering to those who have fulfilled the requirements to going to heaven. Why is it that since you cannot argue against science that you want to twist semantics to make me sound like I am saying something else?
:-D )
(Wow, it's amazing how that puts a smile across my face!
Ignorance is bliss. You base your faith on nothingness, you argue against reason and are blissful in the process. It is pointless to argue with those that choose ignorance. I am reminded of the saying "Never argue with a fool, passersby cannot tell the difference" and to that end, I digress.
Ok, you're right. It was me that started "behaving like a child" with the whole "If you knew anything about Christianity" comment. You're right, I am undeserving to talk to a person of your "adultness". "Like an adult", give me a break, you still believe in fairy tales - aside from completely misunderstanding what I mean about "just due in the end" [i.e. God taking us to heaven].
When you get 2 braincells to rub together (i.e. basing your ideas on facts, basic reading comprehension), let me know and we can continue this.
Micah, I have enjoyed our conversations but find that like other Christians you ignore what you can't explain. Review what I have posted to you in the past, you will see that I have addressed every single one of your arguments adnausem. Gain some understanding of the nature of the Universe, and realize that we are likely not as rare as you think. Your table of statistics can be countered with other statistics. Just start with the Drake equation. A conservative estimate using the Drake equation puts 1000 planets with intelligent (capable of communicating) life IN OUR GALAXY. There is an estimated 125 billion galaxies. Even being extremely conservative and saying one in 10 galaxies has the potential for life, we are still saying there are 12.5 billion planets like ours. Get as conservative as you'd like and you would see that it is just not likely that we are the only life bearing planet in the UNIVERSE. Please, just google for the size of the known universe. Do you really believe being such an infintismal speck on some far flung planet in some average galaxy really suggests with any kind of certainty that we are truly the only life in existence? If you believe this, you are not only uneducated but arrogant as well. Read a book besides your bible, and quit wasting my time until you get some true facts. As long as you argue with me with your bible or some other related text as a source, I will consider your argument flawed.
If you knew anything about me, you'd know I know a lot about christianity. You would know my intentions as a teenager to go to seminary, you would know I've spent hours, days, weeks, researching the Bible. I would wager that I probablty know as much if not more about this ancient text as you do -from a scholars point of view, and a Christians point of view. You would know the first 18 years of my life I spent in church everyday the doors were open. You would know that I would love to embrace christianity if it answered the questions I asked. What do you think Armegeddan is about? What do you think "the meek inheriting the earth" suggests? If you weren't waiting until the end for your just due, why do you need faith now? Do not be so quick to judge hyprocrite.
"faith negates the need for truth"
Wow, you don't see the flaw in that thinking? There are times when there is a need for "faith", but I view it a bit different. When a scientific theory is proposed, it is because EVIDENCE suggests the correctness of the theory. You then systematically try to disprove that theory to make it robust. The Bible is not subject to such scrutiny and is not based in "TRUTH" whatsoever and thus is flawed. The BIble "may" be suggested to be inspired by god, but in fact was written by a man. If I wrote a text today and said "God inspired me", I would be considered a blashphemer, and a nut. What makes something old less worthless? I do understand that it is frivolous to argue with a person of faith. Christian faith teaches that naysayers will come and you should resist the heretics. This being true makes it pointless to continue this conversation.
I find it amazing that out of all the responses to this post, there was not one that said I was wrong, although there have been over 10 mod points used to knock me to zero. Is there a Zionist that can justify their views? Or are all of you going to passive/aggressive(ly) disagree by modding? No wonder diplomacy is done with bombs in Israel. You have no basis for your genocide other than Israeli greed. Please, make me understand your position. Give me the intellectual basis for my err. I have tried to understand - I really wanted to support Israel, I mean we give so much money to you guys and take so much shit because of our support for you, I really wanted to get behind the cause. I am obviously missing the point, because all of the research shows you are murdering bastards. Here, look at these stats:
Israeli children dead = 106 | Palestinians children dead = 535 |||| 6322 Israelis dead | 25601 Palestinians dead
This is what "God" wants? This is fair? This is fighting terrorism? This is true anti-semitism.
PLEASE make me understand, if I am so wrong, please tell me why so I don't look like such an ass. My aim isn't to hurt, but to find truth and understanding - if I am wrong and you can show me why then I have learned something.
Kill yourself now.
Great! Then Viagra will really be irrelevant.
Why is it that anyone who challenges Israel's fucked up policies is immediately labeled an anti-semite? Could it be that noone cares about their religion but the way they thrust themselves on the world. I am very sympathetic to the sufferers of the holocaust - it was an EXTREMELY inhumane action that should have never been able to occur. Truman should also never allowed Israel to be created, displacing all of the Palestinians. He was warned that what is happening now would indeed occur. I understand after the displacement of the Jewish people from Russia etc that it would be desirous to have their own nation. The reality is that this Zionist policy has cost thousands of lives and will ultimately lead to the destruction of the Jewish people (remember, you are a minority in that area. You could kill and kill, but the Arab people will outlast you)
The point is Israel - NOONE CARES WHAT RELIGION YOU ARE - JUST QUIT BEING SUCH ASSHOLES!!! ZIONISM IS INHUMANE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.
Please, no more death to further YOUR people at the expense of others. It is called anti-semetic when someone dislikes Jews, but what is it called when Jews hate everyone else? It is like "White man's guilt" because of slavery. We have "Christian Guilt" due to the holocaust and thus allow Israel to do some very oppresive things. Noone wants to be called anti-semetic for standing up to them.
This is not an anti-semetic statement. I have many jewish friends, have dated a few jewish girls and have no problem with jews in general - just Israeli policies. There are also many Jews that completely disagree with Zionist policies. Please, quit trying to say everyone who doesn't agree with you(Israel) is anti-semetic. Get over yourself, you are not the "chosen ones", you're just like everyone else.
i will just say, the crap about the planets is indeed crap. I have no idea where this guy is basing his logic and I am sure that if one was to attepmt to prove the opposite point, it could be done just as easy with similiar but supporting math.
Having said that, the point is moot since all the arguments you make contradicts the pope's understanding of evolution as more than a hypothesis. Argue with me, argue with him as well.
If life is found on Mars or elsewhere will that show you how unrare life really is? Will that shatter your belief system? Will some contort more biblical passages to show how god predicted martitans? Where will your faith be then?
As for faith the size of a galaxy to believe in evolution, I believe there is more tangible evidence for evolution (aside from the simple fact it just makes sense) than any of the conjecture of your beloved Ancient text. Without faith, there really is nowhere to stand on religion ~ the very premise is faith, evolution is based on evidence.
Is it "wise" to have faith in something that is without evidence? The Bible is the only proof and the source of the Bible is not immune from questions about its orgin. Aside from the questions of its origin, the affects of translation by powerful rulers - i.e. King James and his desire to compel the poor to tithe to the church. What about the fact that some books in the original version of the bible are excluded? If your only source of this wisdom is the Bible , you truly are on shakey ground. I know the arguments. I know that the Bible is ancient - so is Homer's Iliad, it doesn't make it true.
I'll give you your point as it is a god one, and I will counter with - if we have made it this far, is it really impractical to believe we are that far away from making life from scratch? Is your point one that says "well, this is as far we can go, the rest is what God made, we should just have faith and not try to understand"?
I don't know where to start. I guess I will just pick your post apart from top to bottom.
gave evidence of the Bible's accuracy, but I think you have pre-determined the kind of evidence that is acceptable to you. If I had to guess, I'd say that you simply don't WANT to believe and would reject pretty much any evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible.
I want to believe. I really wish it was so easy. As a young man I had planned to attend seminary, but those in the church ran out answers before I ran out of questions. This caused them to use the good ol' Christian stand by: Have Faith. I want empirical truth and spend my life in search of truth. I am not some atheist trying to just poo poo everything you say, I just want truth. Shit, even Stephen Hawking isn't an atheist. Having said that, I am not an atheist either. I just believe it is a fallacy to believe (especially knowing what I know about the nature of the Universe) That we have all of the answers in some "Ancient text". For all of the faith you and other Christians have, the very nature of your teachings actually does NOT give God enough credit. To gain understanding of the Universe is to gain a better understanding of God. Contorting Biblical verses to represent God's will is, I believe, a form of blasphemy.
> Saying God created the heavens in the earth does not ACCURATELY suggest there was a big bang.
There are several verses that indicate that the universe has been expanding. Here's a quick search to get a subset of them.
I have no idea how different verses discussing stretched heavens represents accurate information about the big bang. It is just a poetic way of saying "I made this stuff"
Like I said, the Bible isn't meant to have many scientific details, but those that are there are accurate. I can't imagine how Moses would have known on his own that the universe had a beginning, the early earth was void, then eventually watery, the Spirit did something in the waters, then after that light reached the earth. Genesis 1 continues to talk about the formation of the water cycle (day 2) and plate tectonics to form stable continents (day 3). That all matches the understanding of modern science surprisingly well.
Even a young child is aware that nature evolves - such is the nature of nature. Moses was just a human being. It makes sense, and therefore should somehow be represented everywhere. Because Moses had this intuition suggests nothing in the form of proof of God.
Interesting theory. Nice way for atheists to try to avoid the theistic implications of the BB. But like the bottom of the page says, this isn't proven. It maybe avoids a singularity (and thus could pose a problem for Genesis 1:1), but does it really get rid of all theistic implications? How likely is it that the said collision could have happened? And the expansion of the universe would still need to be incredibly fine tuned for any life to exist.
Anyway, I'm not concerned about that idea unless it were proven. It is only attempting to get God's direct hand out of the BB. Since I believe in God, I have no reason to replace the BB, as long as evidence supports it; and it does, overwhelingly.
Also, if the Bible seems to say that the earth is the center of the universe (which I'm not sure that it does, although I know people have implied that from it), keep in mind frame of reference. ANYTHING can be the center of the universe. Same with it saying the sun rises and sets. Our frame of reference is on the earth.
The nature of a scientist is to find truth. There is not some conspiracy to discredit the faithful, the faithful just do not base there faith in empirical truth.
If you truly had a fleeting understanding of how large and old the Universe really is, you would realize that everything is not only possible, but WILL occur at one point or another. No matter how remote the possibilities are, they will occur. I believe the Universe is
As an aside, the hindedburg did not burn due to hydrogen but because of the flammable coating on the outside of the hull. If not for that fact, the incident would have been far less dramtic.
http://engineer.ea.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm
I knew you coudn't do it. Basically you did exactly what I asked you not to - infere the prose in the bible matches current understanding. Saying God created the heavens in the earth does not ACCURATELY suggest there was a big bang. Again no mention of background radiation or gravity. Did you also know that theories suggest there was a big bang but scientists have a problem with a single beginning. What is more likely is a new theory called the Ekpyrotic Model http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/ which suggests a cyclic process - but you didn't dwell on this too much - no facts to support your idea, just supposition so you moved on to the formation of the Earth. The fallacy I find with Christians is an acceptance that this "Ancient text" is the end all of answers. If it wasn't for heretic scientists, we would still believe the Earth was the center of the Universe. Remember that this "ancient text" was used to support Ptolemy - because it was the accepted model at that time (remember Galileo being put on house arrest for heresy because he suggested the earth wasn't the center of the Universe, remember Coprinicus hiding his findings to escape a similiar fate?) How about instead of waiting for the newest theory to come out to conform the interpretation of the Bible you guys do something original? Scientists have already began to create life http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-ne w-life-usat_x.htm, all that is left is evolution which takes time.
There is no accuracy or facts in your post. The bible is vague enough to conform to any new model. You should just have faith that at this moment we DON'T know. This is more plausible than trying to infere scientific "accurancy" from convulted Armenian legends (the old testament was stories told around a camp fire until a hebrew came and translated into the old testament), and the writings of mostly one man (Paul wrote most of the new testament). Again, think for yourself and quit lying to yourself to justify your faith.
The point was that linux serves many purposes aside from sound support and the fact that it doesn't support your soundcard does not make it less relevant. Great!! You enjoy windows on the desktop. I would never put windows on a production server. So take what you will from linux as far as sound - linux has established its place in the server market. It will only be a matter of time until it rules the desktop. Maybe not today, but it is inevitable as long as it remains free.
Just install mandrake. That is one good desktop distro. Seriously. I have installed and tried out many distros, but starting with Mandrake 9.2, I have had very few pieces of hardware that didn't work (aside from my damn scanner / HP 3570c).
Exactly. Which is why this isn't really an issue with Linux - linux works fine given the proper drivers. How many drivers has MS had to reverse engineer inorder to get it compatible with Windows?
All of this is moot anyway. Noone claims Linux is ready for grandma, it's bottom - up evolving - it will get there, especially now that major vendors are rolling out Linux PCs. Linux has proven the most important - stable, secure, reliable. A sound card is gravy. I know I don't need a sound card on my linux dns server, cvs server, webserver, mailserver, firewall - and I wouldn't trust Windows to perform any of those functions reliably. Neither do a majority of others. Fine, condemn Linux because your particular sound card doesn't work - shit I've had similiar problems in the past ( although I always eventually got them to work after much gnashing of teeth), just don't call it Linux's "Achilles Heel" - if Linux NEVER got soundcards to work, I will still run all of my servers with it, and probably still have it as my desktop as well. As far as I am concerned, Linux has been fine for me on the desktop since RH 6.2.
In referance to mandrake, it IS easy. My 8 year old girl installed it with little guidance and my computer illiterate girlfriend prefers it over XP - specifically because of urpmi. I bookmarked sourceforge for her, told her to search there for what she wanted to do (to get the name of a particular app that performs her desired function), then taught her: urpmi.update -a && urpmi appname. She was sold. She was pretty much a clean slate so she had no preexisting notions to get in the way, she just accepted that this is the way things are done and did them.
Sorry, "malicious/erroneous" is subjective. Maybe there would be a default for average users, but as they evolve, they would need to be able to tweak it. Then, how do you decide beyond that? What if you installed gator? It operates as expected, but not as you want. What if I DO want to rm -rf /directory ~ or what if I never want that to happen but don't realize it until it's too late? How can you compensate for human behavior without a human counterpart? It would have to be very low level (protect the OS and BASIC kernel functions) or have very sophisticated AI to learn your habits. Until it was taught however, it could get quite ugly. It would almost need to read your mind and predict the future from the point of install. Code it up and sell it to MS, you'll be a insanely rich. Good luck ;-)
Accurate? Give me a break. You can only infere accuracy the way Nostradomas's predictions are considered accurate. Once an event occurs, you can refer to the writings and make the words conform to any event. I beseech you to offer ONE accurate example about the formation of the Universe - not some supposition that you glean to fit a scientifically proven fact. I know the book of Geniuses. And I have never seen any information in the book about background radiation from the big bang or anything related to gravity. I would consider a tome with "a LOT" of information regarding this subject to at least mention the relevance of gravity in the formation of the Universe instead of prose that Christians have twisted in interpretation to match scientific facts - like King James did to encourage tithing.
Please, prove me wrong. No gobblygook, just a smidgen of "accurate" information.