It isn't as simple as all that. There are plenty of very intelligent religionists. You can find solid evidence of this if you do a little directed reading of some of the deeper works on religion; textual criticism is one area I've found to be well populated with intelligent and insightful people, for instance. You're correct about textual criticism but you are incorrectly assuming that there is any overlap between textual criticism and creationism. The field of textual criticism assumes that their are errors in the bible that we can discover through study to better understand the Bible. Christian fundamentalism believes that the KJV is inerrant and that it is the only source the faithful need to understand God's full truth. They disagree in many areas, for instance who wrote the book of Matthew. A Biblical scholar will say we don't know, a fundamentalist will say it was Matthew because it says "The Gospel according to Matthew", case closed. So no, the intelligent and insightful textual critics are not Christian fundamentalists. In fact, some of them aren't even Christian.
Me? I say we judge who's bright and who's not by either their creative output or their annual income. That's a real winner of an idea. At least we can still agree that Teddy is about as smart as Paris Hilton then.
That animation explains why the technology came out so fast. Apparently perpendicular recording is made possible by the application of a technology which has been mature for decades... disco. Very interesting.
Actually, it has everything to do with the situation No it doesn't. Both BSD and GPL allow code to be copied infinitely without restriction. The problem is what happens when someone modifies the code. The apples may be free but that doesn't mean the pies are.
BSD licensing people would prefer that you do return code; they just don't want to force you to do that (perhaps since they see such forcing as immoral in and of itself). The GPL doesn't force anyone to do anything. If they don't want to release the code back to anyone then it is their option not to use the code in the first place, right? I know you're not a BSD person, but that seems like a wrongheaded position to take if that is true.
I wouldn't say it's exactly ironic. Just because the GPL was created as a solution to a problem doesn't make the problem magically go away. Fire was invented a long time ago and yet people can still get cold, right?
obligatory Bill Hicks...
You ever notice how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe that God made me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.
It didn't KILL local business. It changed it. Other stores opened up near the new WalMart etc... What sort of stores opened up near the Walmart? Where they really local stores or where they more big box stores and other national chains? I really doubt that the stores opening up near Walmart where anything truly local.
Matter must have an origin, but a spirit need not. Care to back that up with something other than with theories about God created by men out of whole cloth?
That isn't true at all. There are theories about what could have caused the big bang, such as a collision of two branes or a cyclical universe that goes ends from big bang to big crunch back to big bang again. It's true that our science can't model what happens before the big bang and we also don't have any way of observing what happened back then so it is basically outside of science. But, the same is also true for the inside of a black hole. Is it meaningless to ask what happens inside of a black hole? Maybe, but we don't deny that there is something going on there. By the way, the creator is also something that we can't observe and can't model with our science but clearly you don't think speculation about his nature is meaningless.
Regarding the creator, you already said that before the big bang the laws of physics as we know them didn't exist, so why should they apply there any more than they apply to a hypothetical creator?
Sorry, that doesn't fly. We don't know what happened before the big bang and so whatever preceded the universe, if anything, was outside our conception of time as well. There is no reason why anything that can be said about the origin of a creator or its lack thereof can't also be said of the Universe.
We are biological "robots", so you're argument is only shifting the location of evolution from on earth where it provably did happen to some fictional planet. That doesn't advance the argument in any way that I can see.
The line was already drawn long before the stem cell issue. The embryo's researchers would use get thrown in the trash if they aren't used. There is only a moral dilemma if you close your eyes and pretend that isn't the case.
So how did you get to the "to promote the progress of science" clause while entirely missing the "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" part. I think that funding basic scientific research falls squarely under providing for the general welfare of the nation.
Because this nation is not, nor has it ever been, libertarian. Good point! If they want a libertarian nation, why are they relying on the government to give it to them? I think all the libertarians should go off and start their own free market "paradise" somewhere.
...and in what way we should do things differently from other socialist systems that have failed generally (while they might have succeeded in one area or another). Simple answer is look to the socialist governments that have succeeded. The UK and Canada, and some other European nations have adopted socialist principles without collapsing. There is plenty that we can learn from them.
The issue isn't with what the Bible says, the issue is what do the candidates believe. If someone like Tom Tancredo believes in the modern rapture myth then that is the belief that will influence his decision making regardless of what is in the Bible.
I would wager that most anti-religious people you meet started off as religious. Their opposition to religion comes not from ignorance but from knowing it all too well.
BS. The entire justification for Intelligent Design is that something as complex as our universe couldn't of just happened by itself, it had to have had a creator. Obviously if our universe is to complex to have just happened, then the same must be true for our even more complex creator. If the creator could have just happened without a creator then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have just happened as well.
In other words, the whole theory is nothing but a contradictory, pseudo-scientific ploy to force God^W an unnamed creator who could be God but doesn't have to be God into the public schools. Even the creationists would have found the whole theory absurd back in the day before they became afraid to call themselves creationists in public.
Slashdot Mirror
That animation explains why the technology came out so fast. Apparently perpendicular recording is made possible by the application of a technology which has been mature for decades... disco. Very interesting.
Right, it's the people not using the fire.
I wouldn't say it's exactly ironic. Just because the GPL was created as a solution to a problem doesn't make the problem magically go away. Fire was invented a long time ago and yet people can still get cold, right?
http://www.stericycle.com/compliance/index.html?g
No, this isn't under your rights online it's filed under politics and privacy exactly as it should be.
That's entirely different, it's just to show that you payed your admission. They don't look at your drivers license or any other proof of identity.
That isn't true at all. There are theories about what could have caused the big bang, such as a collision of two branes or a cyclical universe that goes ends from big bang to big crunch back to big bang again. It's true that our science can't model what happens before the big bang and we also don't have any way of observing what happened back then so it is basically outside of science. But, the same is also true for the inside of a black hole. Is it meaningless to ask what happens inside of a black hole? Maybe, but we don't deny that there is something going on there. By the way, the creator is also something that we can't observe and can't model with our science but clearly you don't think speculation about his nature is meaningless.
Regarding the creator, you already said that before the big bang the laws of physics as we know them didn't exist, so why should they apply there any more than they apply to a hypothetical creator?
Sorry, that doesn't fly. We don't know what happened before the big bang and so whatever preceded the universe, if anything, was outside our conception of time as well. There is no reason why anything that can be said about the origin of a creator or its lack thereof can't also be said of the Universe.
We are biological "robots", so you're argument is only shifting the location of evolution from on earth where it provably did happen to some fictional planet. That doesn't advance the argument in any way that I can see.
The line was already drawn long before the stem cell issue. The embryo's researchers would use get thrown in the trash if they aren't used. There is only a moral dilemma if you close your eyes and pretend that isn't the case.
So how did you get to the "to promote the progress of science" clause while entirely missing the "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" part. I think that funding basic scientific research falls squarely under providing for the general welfare of the nation.
...and in what way we should do things differently from other socialist systems that have failed generally (while they might have succeeded in one area or another). Simple answer is look to the socialist governments that have succeeded. The UK and Canada, and some other European nations have adopted socialist principles without collapsing. There is plenty that we can learn from them.The issue isn't with what the Bible says, the issue is what do the candidates believe. If someone like Tom Tancredo believes in the modern rapture myth then that is the belief that will influence his decision making regardless of what is in the Bible.
I would wager that most anti-religious people you meet started off as religious. Their opposition to religion comes not from ignorance but from knowing it all too well.
BS. The entire justification for Intelligent Design is that something as complex as our universe couldn't of just happened by itself, it had to have had a creator. Obviously if our universe is to complex to have just happened, then the same must be true for our even more complex creator. If the creator could have just happened without a creator then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have just happened as well.
In other words, the whole theory is nothing but a contradictory, pseudo-scientific ploy to force God^W an unnamed creator who could be God but doesn't have to be God into the public schools. Even the creationists would have found the whole theory absurd back in the day before they became afraid to call themselves creationists in public.
Criticism of our nations worst president will get old the day all the damage done to our Constitutional government has been undone. Not a day sooner.
Anyway, if it's off topic let the mods do their job and quit bitching.
Just checked wikipedia, for what's it's worth what I heard is wrong. Oh well.