Mainstream Christian creationism explains the universe as being created in it's current mature state by God. That's not ex nihilo, unless you classify God as nothing.
How exactly is what Hawking says related to creationism?
What about that question shows a lack of understanding of religion? It's a perfectly valid question. Creationists believe their God is perfect and unchanging. If he never changed and always existed, how did he at some point decide to make a universe? That's not such an easy thing to answer.
In my opinion that question actually shows a very good understanding of the religion of his critics.
The impression I got was that it was a two-way link like WiMAX but using a different frequency. In fact what isn't clear to me is how it is different from WiMAX.
I will agree with you that it shouldn't have been informative. Obvious? yes. Redundant? Maybe. But informative? Who could that possibly have been a novel thought to?
How is that theory you adhere to substantially different from string theory where everything is made up of vibrating packets of energy? Even if it is different I'm guessing it run into the same problem as string theory, we don't have the means to prove it with any current technology.
The reason scientists haven't tossed out quantum theory and it's myriad particles is because it's been proven accurate and the particles have been observed experimentally. A lot of scientists would love to be able to throw out all those ad hoc particles and explain everything using much simpler particles that make up all the rest, but until one of those other theories can be proven we are stuck with Quantum theory.
At some point in time too many researchers in too many big-name physics research groups began taking too much LSD and, at that time, they began to needlessly complicate lots of things.
Could you provide an example of what you mean? Parsimony is a highly regarded trait in science.
Are you redefining poor to not mean houshold income but someone inability to make the money they want
No, I'm saying people who can't afford to house their family I would consider poor. Now if you want to redefine my words to make me say things I didn't say I can't stop you but you won't win any debate points with tactics like that.
Yet you and people like you think we should give them everything they want
Another straw man.
I'll answer this, I [sic] makes your argument based on lies and deciete [sic]!
How ironic.
Whatever, I'm done. You can go back to watching The Factor now and foaming at the mouth while O'Reilly goes on about how all the worlds problems are the fault of the liberals.
Homeless living with friends or family against their will are not legally considered homeless in the US, but they are homeless by my standards because my OP was about people who are poor. This is all tangential to my point, I only mentioned the homeless as an example of someone who lacks adequate health care in the US.
Also for the majority of homeless people it is a temporary situation lasting less than a few months. You assertions about the homeless only apply to a small minority of them.
You say that the ACLU is at fault (why doesn't that surprise me) because they sued to have the mentally ill released. Could you provide the name of the case you are talking about? I'd like to read more about that but can't find anything about it. Anyway, if you are correct about that then that would mean that all the homeless people on the street are there because of mental illness and they should rightfully be institutionalized. If this is the case how can you also claim that the homeless are homeless by choice? Either they are mentally ill or they are homeless because they want to be, which is it? You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive causes.
I can understand why you call yourself sumdumass. First of all, their are a lot of people in this country without medical insurance. What does it matter if they are the poor or the poorest or the only kinda sorta poor? If they can't afford it they are poor enough.
And the homeless are generally that way by choice too. Not all of them but a good majority of them.
I'm guessing you don't have numbers to back that up, but it really doesn't matter. You acknowledged that it's not all of them, which is true and it's all that needs to be said really. A sizable portion of the homeless are mentally ill. Sometimes that's due to addiction, sometimes the addiction is due to the mental illness. Also you seem to be only thinking about the homeless living on the street in the city. Many homeless you don't see because they are lucky enough to have family and friends that can help them out or because they live in their car instead of on a street corner.
BTW, the "homeless" people you saw on that news report clearly aren't homeless, so why even bring them up? I am talking about homeless, not professional beggars.
As a person, and a free software advocate, I'd be wary of anyone labelling something as left or right. Debate issues for what they are, instead of trying to categorise them as left or right.
Why can't people label things as left or right? Are you also wary of people who label things as edible and non-edible?
It's true that sometimes people do use labels as an excuse to stop thinking about them, but other people just label things because it conveys the intended meaning. Personally, I'm fairly leftist. Is that just a label? No, it means something. Go ahead and try to guess my stances on health care, the drug war, and the war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure you'll find the leftist label pretty helpful.
I'm still totally baffled by liberals. Their approach means that the person with the smallest portion of the "conservative pie" gets more than if the same person got an equal portion of the "liberal pie" but equal distribution means more to them than better off.
I can understand why you're baffled by liberals. I consider myself a liberal and yet I'm baffled by your explanation too. Where on Earth do you come up with the idea that the person with the smallest portion of the "conservative pie" gets more than if the same person got an equal portion of the "liberal pie"? In the everyman for himself conservative ideal there is no lower limit for the pie slices. Just look at our country where the richest have more money than they could ever possibly use and the poorest have no health care and can barely afford to feed themselves. I'd like to see how you explain to a homeless person how much worse off they would be if they lived in a more socialist place like Europe where he would be guaranteed health insurance.
Of course I also agree with Hayek that the liberal approach has the advantage that they get to control ever aspect of everyone's life since that's the only was to guarantee that everyone gets an equal portion.
That's funny, cause the liberals I know don't care who you marry, what you smoke or what religion you practice as long as it's not hurting anyone. Taxing income fairly and trying to better balance the distribution of the wealth is far different from controlling every aspect of everyone's life, in fact I would say it has nothing to do with it. If you're wealthy your paycheck is a bit smaller, if you're poor your paycheck is a bit bigger and beyond that everyone is free to do what they want (as long as it's not harming anyone else, I think that's reasonable).
That sounds like a good idea from a technical standpoint. OTOH, what's the point of having a standard file format if you still can't view the image because you don't have the codec it needs?
TIFF had a problem like that in it's early days when the name was said to stand for "Thousands of Incompatible File Formats". The same things happens today when I try to open a.avi file and find out I need the latest and greatest codec from Windows Media Player in order to view it. We really do need to agree on a standard codec as well as container format so that anything that claims to read.foo files can indeed read all your.foo files.
It's not all automated. Ground Control will decided where to send the plane depending on the situation. Also, I would guess that the autopilot won't take over automatically in the middle of a decent. They can handle landings fine of they have control from the beginning, but it sounds like trouble switching over at some half-way point.
They do have "nicer" hijackers over there. Most hijackers don't want to kill themselves and everyone else. As is true for most things, 9/11 didn't change that.
I don't know what form of Christianity you practice, but growing up as a Baptist there absolutely was a distinction made between the normal discontent of life on earth and the suffering awaiting unbelievers in the afterlife. Life on earth is not perfect, but we are also not completely separated from God. If we were then Christians wouldn't see any point in praying, but they do. The Christian idea of hell on the other hand is a place where we are completely separated from God and the suffering of that existence is supposed to be far worse than here on Earth.
If my life right now was hell then that wouldn't be so bad frankly. The afterlife would certainly be a bit boring at times, but I could deal with that. That however isn't the idea of hell sold to me in Sunday School for most of my life.
Really though the distinction between us being in hell now or destined for hell later is not really relevant to my original point which is that an all powerful God could do a lot more to ward off our suffering then posting a warning in an ancient book which not everyone trusts. I thought there where a lot more interesting points raised in my post then the one you singled out for response.
Slashdot Mirror
Mainstream Christian creationism explains the universe as being created in it's current mature state by God. That's not ex nihilo, unless you classify God as nothing.
How exactly is what Hawking says related to creationism?
What about that question shows a lack of understanding of religion? It's a perfectly valid question. Creationists believe their God is perfect and unchanging. If he never changed and always existed, how did he at some point decide to make a universe? That's not such an easy thing to answer.
In my opinion that question actually shows a very good understanding of the religion of his critics.
The impression I got was that it was a two-way link like WiMAX but using a different frequency. In fact what isn't clear to me is how it is different from WiMAX.
Happier now?
Got to love that slashdot math, 3+3-2=0
I will agree with you that it shouldn't have been informative. Obvious? yes. Redundant? Maybe. But informative? Who could that possibly have been a novel thought to?
It's a bit like the difference between loving your accountant and loving your mother.
How is that theory you adhere to substantially different from string theory where everything is made up of vibrating packets of energy? Even if it is different I'm guessing it run into the same problem as string theory, we don't have the means to prove it with any current technology.
The reason scientists haven't tossed out quantum theory and it's myriad particles is because it's been proven accurate and the particles have been observed experimentally. A lot of scientists would love to be able to throw out all those ad hoc particles and explain everything using much simpler particles that make up all the rest, but until one of those other theories can be proven we are stuck with Quantum theory.
This of course calls into question the definition of "headquarters"
Having multiple headquarters makes a lot more sense if you think of Halliburton as the seven headed beast of the apocalypse.
The money isn't going to any of the nations that need help. The United Arab Emirates is quite a wealthy nation already.
Give them a break, they already pay for plenty of Americans.
Four decades ago? Please tell me you don't think the 1960 is closer to the invention of the telescope than 1600!
Man, you sure do like your porn!
I suppose the only thing we can do if we hope to slow them down is to downsize Philly.
No joke, the Simpson media circus was like a day in traffic court compared to this case. What gives?
Are you redefining poor to not mean houshold income but someone inability to make the money they want
No, I'm saying people who can't afford to house their family I would consider poor. Now if you want to redefine my words to make me say things I didn't say I can't stop you but you won't win any debate points with tactics like that.
Yet you and people like you think we should give them everything they want
Another straw man.
I'll answer this, I [sic] makes your argument based on lies and deciete [sic]!
How ironic.
Whatever, I'm done. You can go back to watching The Factor now and foaming at the mouth while O'Reilly goes on about how all the worlds problems are the fault of the liberals.
Homeless living with friends or family against their will are not legally considered homeless in the US, but they are homeless by my standards because my OP was about people who are poor. This is all tangential to my point, I only mentioned the homeless as an example of someone who lacks adequate health care in the US.
Also for the majority of homeless people it is a temporary situation lasting less than a few months. You assertions about the homeless only apply to a small minority of them.
You say that the ACLU is at fault (why doesn't that surprise me) because they sued to have the mentally ill released. Could you provide the name of the case you are talking about? I'd like to read more about that but can't find anything about it. Anyway, if you are correct about that then that would mean that all the homeless people on the street are there because of mental illness and they should rightfully be institutionalized. If this is the case how can you also claim that the homeless are homeless by choice? Either they are mentally ill or they are homeless because they want to be, which is it? You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive causes.
I can understand why you call yourself sumdumass. First of all, their are a lot of people in this country without medical insurance. What does it matter if they are the poor or the poorest or the only kinda sorta poor? If they can't afford it they are poor enough.
And the homeless are generally that way by choice too. Not all of them but a good majority of them.
I'm guessing you don't have numbers to back that up, but it really doesn't matter. You acknowledged that it's not all of them, which is true and it's all that needs to be said really. A sizable portion of the homeless are mentally ill. Sometimes that's due to addiction, sometimes the addiction is due to the mental illness. Also you seem to be only thinking about the homeless living on the street in the city. Many homeless you don't see because they are lucky enough to have family and friends that can help them out or because they live in their car instead of on a street corner.
BTW, the "homeless" people you saw on that news report clearly aren't homeless, so why even bring them up? I am talking about homeless, not professional beggars.
As a person, and a free software advocate, I'd be wary of anyone labelling something as left or right. Debate issues for what they are, instead of trying to categorise them as left or right.
Why can't people label things as left or right? Are you also wary of people who label things as edible and non-edible?
It's true that sometimes people do use labels as an excuse to stop thinking about them, but other people just label things because it conveys the intended meaning. Personally, I'm fairly leftist. Is that just a label? No, it means something. Go ahead and try to guess my stances on health care, the drug war, and the war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure you'll find the leftist label pretty helpful.
I guess it's kinda like the way Rumsfeld took responsibility for the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib.
Nice! That sounds like it should be in "The Tao of Programming".
That sounds like a good idea from a technical standpoint. OTOH, what's the point of having a standard file format if you still can't view the image because you don't have the codec it needs?
.avi file and find out I need the latest and greatest codec from Windows Media Player in order to view it. We really do need to agree on a standard codec as well as container format so that anything that claims to read .foo files can indeed read all your .foo files.
TIFF had a problem like that in it's early days when the name was said to stand for "Thousands of Incompatible File Formats". The same things happens today when I try to open a
It's not all automated. Ground Control will decided where to send the plane depending on the situation. Also, I would guess that the autopilot won't take over automatically in the middle of a decent. They can handle landings fine of they have control from the beginning, but it sounds like trouble switching over at some half-way point.
They do have "nicer" hijackers over there. Most hijackers don't want to kill themselves and everyone else. As is true for most things, 9/11 didn't change that.
I don't know what form of Christianity you practice, but growing up as a Baptist there absolutely was a distinction made between the normal discontent of life on earth and the suffering awaiting unbelievers in the afterlife. Life on earth is not perfect, but we are also not completely separated from God. If we were then Christians wouldn't see any point in praying, but they do. The Christian idea of hell on the other hand is a place where we are completely separated from God and the suffering of that existence is supposed to be far worse than here on Earth.
If my life right now was hell then that wouldn't be so bad frankly. The afterlife would certainly be a bit boring at times, but I could deal with that. That however isn't the idea of hell sold to me in Sunday School for most of my life.
Really though the distinction between us being in hell now or destined for hell later is not really relevant to my original point which is that an all powerful God could do a lot more to ward off our suffering then posting a warning in an ancient book which not everyone trusts. I thought there where a lot more interesting points raised in my post then the one you singled out for response.