The person I was responding to is implying that Jesus never existed at all, and was made up later.
As for your examples, you are assuming that this was all simply recollection. Well, two things:
1) since writing was more difficult, people were better at both memorization (for events), and telling memorable stories (for teaching)
2) there were likely several early records of Jesus' teaching. Eusebius says that Matthew actually originated as a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic, which later had the events added for context (perhaps this is the mysterious Q document, with events added based on Mark?).
Likewise, John had access to numerous eyewitnesses who were there at the same time.
But, anyway, my point was that the early date for a found copy of John is way too early for a lot of the revisionist histories to account for (like, that the gospels were written during the council of Nicea and passed off as histories from much longer ago).
"And no, it doesn't seem odd to me that every link in the chain has to be stable - the opposite would be bizarre."
Imagine a computer program. Could you go from vi to Microsoft Word, even intentionally, making one line of change per version, where every intermediate version was stable (and I'll even throw in free declarations to make it compile)? THAT would be bizzare, even if not done randomly.
"That is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Random copying errors don't produce eyes, or wings, or brains by themselves. Natural selection produces these things."
No, natural selection _selects_ those things. This makes the theory more difficult, not less, because it requires that ALL traits to have travelled through stable intermediates. It means there can be no trait that required genes that had even one unstable intermediate.
In addition, its operating on the assumption that the genes are the major part of what produces the final organism. In fact, embryology has shown us that the parent's reproductive system has more to do with the body plan of the sibling than does the sibling's genes (not that genes don't play a role, but the parent's reproductive system governs the major body plan, not the genes).
If you look at the high degree of specificity that large numbers of genes have to have to work correctly together, and the number of times these systems supposedly "convergently evolved" through history, it looks much more like a series of design patterns mixed together in interesting ways, and not a strict hierarchy.
Take for example, the Marsupial wolf. Especially note the similarities in skull structure with the grey wolf (in fact, the majority of differences come from the fact that it is a marsupial). Now, the marsupials supposedly branched from the placentals hundreds of millions of years ago, yet, on completely different continents (thus, completely different "selective pressures"), you have these two creatures nearly identical come about via random copying errors. In addition, the evolutionary rate made them both extant in the same time period. So, you have the same basic body structure, a very, very, very similar skull, and probably the exact same time frame, yet this supposedly came from independent lines of random copying errors.
"To say that one step down divergent paths is possible but 2 or more are not? WTF?"
No, it's saying that random copying errors don't produce complex interactions.
Running my kid's spelling of his name through the copying machine 1,000,000,000 times won't produce Shakespear.
"Just look at canines to see what geographic separation and selective breeding (human-managed sexual selection) managed to do in a just 10,000 years."
Right, this is exactly the kind of evolution that creationists believe in. Existing genes being selected.
Remember, the fossil evidence shows every phyla of animal arising during the Cambrian period (assuming geologic chronology is correct) fully-formed without intermediaries. We have only lost phyla since then. The actual evolutionary tree of life is inverted from what is hypothesized by evolutionists.
In addition, look at homologies vs. analogies. There's no difference between a homology vs an analogy except for where it is believed to have evolved from. But what the data really looks like is a set of design patterns which have been mixed and matched together to produce an interesting creation. Take the marsupial wolf, for instance. Isn't it a bit odd that you have the near re-creation of a wolf, even though evolution supposedly branched marsupials off hundreds of millions of years earlier? Random copying errors just happened to make a near-identical skull. It's very much design patterns.
On top of that, you have the fact that not only are random copying errors supposedly the great generator of all diversity, but that only those genes which are the result of copying errors that had consecutive stable forms are allowed. So, pretty much every gene we have had to be derivative of other genes in a stable fashion. There can't be a single unstable link in the chain.
A bit odd, don't you think?
Especially odd that the different methods of determining molecular phylogeny have very different results.
"You can't impune the words coming out of Little George's own mouth by attacking Michael Moore. You can cut out all of Moore's editorializing, stunting and stretching the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 and he still hangs Little George just showing unedited video of him being himself."
"As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase)."
That's not quite correct, even as a paraphrase. It's that the simplest explanations are the most useful for determining future probabilities.
If X is caused by angels acting in accordance with a specific command of God, but they always act consistently with mathematical equation Y, then for determining future probabilities I only need mathematical equation Y -- the angels may in fact be there but their existence is of no use when determining future probabilities.
"you break the biggest assumption of science, that the universe is consistent. Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles."
Actually, technically science is the inquiry into that which behaves consistently. It is not equivalent with the asssumption that everything must behave consistently.
If there is a rule, and one who is able to break the rules, science would simply ignore the breakage as something they couldn't repeat, and move on. Whether you believed "X" occurred or not depends on both evidence and faith (obviously if you've excluded miracles a priori then no amount of evidence would convince you -- it would simply be "an unknown phenomena" or a lie).
"Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE."
Actually, there is very little theology in the Bible. The Bible is mostly a work of history -- the history of God's actions among certain peoples. It also includes practical laws and rules and guidance in being righteous, but nothing approaching theology. Theology is determined inductively from scripture, not really deductively.
"One of ID's other tenets is that speciation and significant morphological changes by evolution alone is impossible"
That's incorrect. They believe that complexity-increasing speciation by evolution alone is impossible.
In addition, while most people falsely assume creationists believe in fixity of the species, they actually believe in a much faster speciation than evolutionists. They just don't believe that new organs arise via speciation.
There are many examples of speciation which don't even have anything to do with genetics. Some wasps have speciated based on the presence of certain bacteria in their gut. They are identical genetically, but something prevents them from mating.
Likewise, speciation can occur due to natural selection, which only involves existing genes, not the generation of new ones.
Speciation can also occur due to environmental factors. Some environmental factors can actually affect gene expression heritably, without affecting the genome itself. The study of this is called epigenetics.
Finally, there is degenerative mutations, which both ID's and creationists believe in. For example, the blind cave fish -- used to be a normal cave fish, but a mutation prevented eye lens develop, which prevented the rest of the eye from developing. This is downward, not upward.
Anyway, speciation happens in a number of ways, and ID's and creationists believe in all of them except the "random mutations resulting in complex structures" ones.
As for your sig, I hope you know that he was making a joke at a conference where presidents normally go to make fun of themselves. He was using the fact that people accuse him of pandering to the rich as a joke line. Apparently, Michael Moore can't put anything into context. You should watch Farenhype 9/11. And it doesn't even deal with the misinformation regarding Iraq's role prior to invasion (for that you should read some of Laurie Mylroie's books).
I haven't read the book, but you think that the Josephus references are just made up?
Remember that we actually have copies of the book of John dating back to 120AD, which is _really_ close to the time it was written. Likewise, the dates of the people who lived who quoted the New Testament also establishes an early date.
By reading the reviews of the books, it seems like the author is trying to disprove the basics of Christianity by arguing in agreement with one of its main tenets (that God is readying all people to know Christ). For more information about this, you should check out Eternity in their Hearts.
I sometimes teach as an adjunct. One time I had six kids:
1 good programmer 3 mediocre programmers 2 bad programmer
The good programmer was lazy, and wound up with a B. The 3 mediocre programmers all got B's. One bad programmer asked for help about once a week, and wound up with the only A in the class. The other bad programmer got a D, because no matter how much I tried to encourage him, he never asked for help.
Well, given that I've never owned a Mac, it would be difficult to classify me as a "fanboy". But let's look at what Apple has done:
iTunes -- the first real, legit music source
iPod -- this has really changed the personal electronics landscape
Mac OS X -- this is the best OS I've ever used. Installing programs is as easy as moving an icon from the CD to your Applications folder. Every device has superb video integration -- each part works well, and works well with each other. On top of all of this, it works great with UNIX and you can even run UNIX applications like GIMP very seamlessly.
I think it could easily take 75% of Microsoft's home market away, and 25% of their business market away if anyone ever bothered to try one out.
And, rumour has it that they are going to release a PC in the sub-$600 price range. Their laptops are pretty cheap already. $1000 for a decent one.
With apple, even the third-party applications are better and have better integration. With Windows and Linux, they both suffer from "too many cooks". With Apple, the whole thing takes a pretty unified vision.
Also, Apple's integration w/ Java is pretty killer, too.
I've been wondering where Microsoft has been. Usually they're cooking _something_ up, whether its good or bad. But it seems like this year they have all but dropped off the map.
Internet Explorer isn't being updated..NET is gaining some traction, but its not being hyped anymore, and its definitely not the solution MS was saying it was.
Windows Server 2003 is a yawn.
SQL Server hasn't done anything exciting, except come out with a desktop version.
Anything new in Office?
On top of that, they are being slaughtered by Apple who keeps coming out with great things that people need to buy. Apple keeps redefining what the computer experience is. Linux keeps redefining what the server experience is.
Where did Microsoft go? Honestly, I at least expected some vaporware.
Seems like Dr. Evil and his "laser beam" are finally starting to do their evil deeds!
Re:And Apple is Open, what's the problem.
on
What's Wrong with Unix?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"The fundamental question is do people generally buy an Apple for the OS?"
I haven't bought one, but it sure is the reason I recommend it to others (if by OS you include applications like the Finder, but not iLife etc.).
The expose' feature is wonderful.
The heavy drag-n-drop integration is beyond anything I'd ever even thought of, and makes it a complete joy to use.
The dock is really cool. I like that it magnifies as you go over the icons, that it points to which applications are open, and that it keeps a thumbnail of minimized windows.
The ability to install an application just by moving a single file into the "Applications" directory is phenomenal.
The single-menu-bar is a fantastic idea.
The system preferences are easy to set and use. Setting up mobile networking was a snap.
you can't audit your system easily. If I want to verify that my permissions are in order in Linux, I do ls -l and can see easily. ACLs blow that idea to smitherenes. Then, when applications don't run, it's usually not obvious which combinations of ACLs need to be changed, so you wind up completely compromising your system just to get one COM application to run.
ACLs for user data? Sure. Makes sense, and Linux has them. ACLs for system data? Shouldn't even be allowed. If I weren't lazy, I'd even use different filesystems for user and system data -- they have completely different access patterns, organization, and security needs. (Of course, on Linux, you _can_ set different partitions to be different filesystems;))
"UNIX needs proper application packaging with proper self-contained application packages."
Exactly. We all need to steal Mac OS X's design here.
"but a proper message/event marsheling system would eclipse them all."
I asked him about this years ago and he said that, basically, he kind of agreed but they had been using "free" for so long, switching terms would be counterproductive.
"As well Religion shouldn't be stating that what scientific observe is wrong or evil because they are just because their observations contradict what their book says."
No religious person I've ever met ever called an _observation_ wrong or evil. What they do sometimes take offense at is people who dismiss the observations of past cultures out-of-hand because it is at odds with some scientist's preconceived notions of uniformitarianism and gradualism.
Scientific investigation into history is not the same as doing observational science. In order to do scientific investigation into history you must assume gradualism and uniformitarianism, but that does _prove_ that they are correct assumptions -- there's no way to go back and verify the assumptions. The certainty that people investigating historical science use when making pronouncement is disturbing, especially considering how much the field has changed in the last 100 years. Of course, the one thing they agree on is that the Bible is wrong compared to whatever model of the universe they are using today, even if their current model is wrong, it certainly isn't wrong in the direction that _Christians_ say. Hmmmm... perhaps there are some unmentioned assumptions there? nah....
"The age of the earth is not mentioned biblically. Indeed, but isn't the creation of everything mentioned? I seem to recall they say he created people just a few days after the earth."
The creation of everything _is_ mentioned, just not when it happened. The Bible opened with (a) God creates the heavens and the earth, then (b) the earth was a wasteland, AND THEN you have the 6 days. The 6 days occurred after the earth and heavens already existed.
You seem to be, in general, taking the false idea that I think that creationism is proven. I do not. However, my point (and you seemed to agree with it at least somewhat) was that the evidence isn't conclusive, and this notion that Bible-believers are anti-science is just plain silly, based mostly on secular mythology (which can be summed up as "all non-secularists are dumber than us, and it doesn't matter if we lie about how dumb they are because they are dumb enough to deserve it").
"Sounds good to me, as religion relies heavily on faith, and faith is really just someone taking guesses."
That's incorrect. You are describing guessing. Faith is trust. I have faith in my Dad that when I'm in trouble, he'll help me. I have faith in that because I have a history with him and that's how he's helped me previously. It's different from proof -- I have no proof that he will help me out, but I have faith.
Likewise, Christianity is a faith based on God's work in His people throughought the ages, and the faith that He continues to work. It's not guessing, but it's not proven, either. It's faith.
"The Earth is flat, because this passage from the Bible talks about God stopping the Sun directly overhead!"
Actually the earliest record of the Earth (a) being round and (b) floating in space come from the Bible. The "flat earth" myth is just that, a myth.
As to the sun stopping overhead, don't you think it's interesting how on the other side of the world there is a record of an extended night?
"Okay, okay! But the celestial bodies are little lights in the sky, and perfect and unblemished, and the go around the Earth!"
That was actually the current science, not a religious idea. As most science, it was superceded by later science.
"But the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, as we can determine from Biblical genealogies!"
Actually, the geneologies indicate the age of _man_, not the earth. The age of the earth is not mentioned biblically. The six days of "creation" was not of the creation of the earth -- which was already there, but was a wasteland (i.e. "without form and void"). Of course, all current geological dates are mere guesses, because they assume many things about the earth and the earth's past that we simply don't know (and are often found to be wrong). Uniformitarianism is an assumed fact, even when data shows it to be wrong. For example, we now know from observations at Mt. St. Helen's that formations like the grand canyon can be formed in days, and it doesn't necessarily take millions of years.
"Um, no, actually, we look an awful lot like other apes, and that's really not a coincidence, and here's the proof."
You're right, it isn't a coincidence -- we have the same designer! Most people like to gloss over the fact that the fossil record does not support evolution. The Cambrian explosion, assuming that it is the result of "millions of years" and not the flood, shows EVERY KNOWN PHYLUM coming into existence fully formed. Since then, we have only LOST phylums to extinction, and have not gained new ones. That is the exact _inverse_ of the tree of life predicted by Darwin and even neo-Darwinists.
So, sure, if you make up what other people believe, you can prove them wrong, and if you ignore the facts, you can prove even more people wrong, and if you call all disproved scientific ideas "religion" then you can say that all bad ideas are religious, since you just defined them that way. But I wouldn't go around arguing that as conclusive proof.
Re:They're improving the file dialogs...
on
GTK 2.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I haven't used Gentoo, but I was pretty sure that the version of Gtk used was based on the version the application was coded for, so if it hasn't been ported to Gtk2 yet, it just uses the Gtk1 widgets.
Otherwise, I imagine RedHat and others would have more consistency between apps.
Slashdot Mirror
The person I was responding to is implying that Jesus never existed at all, and was made up later.
As for your examples, you are assuming that this was all simply recollection. Well, two things:
1) since writing was more difficult, people were better at both memorization (for events), and telling memorable stories (for teaching)
2) there were likely several early records of Jesus' teaching. Eusebius says that Matthew actually originated as a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic, which later had the events added for context (perhaps this is the mysterious Q document, with events added based on Mark?).
Likewise, John had access to numerous eyewitnesses who were there at the same time.
But, anyway, my point was that the early date for a found copy of John is way too early for a lot of the revisionist histories to account for (like, that the gospels were written during the council of Nicea and passed off as histories from much longer ago).
"And no, it doesn't seem odd to me that every link in the chain has to be stable - the opposite would be bizarre."
Imagine a computer program. Could you go from vi to Microsoft Word, even intentionally, making one line of change per version, where every intermediate version was stable (and I'll even throw in free declarations to make it compile)? THAT would be bizzare, even if not done randomly.
"That is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Random copying errors don't produce eyes, or wings, or brains by themselves. Natural selection produces these things."
No, natural selection _selects_ those things. This makes the theory more difficult, not less, because it requires that ALL traits to have travelled through stable intermediates. It means there can be no trait that required genes that had even one unstable intermediate.
In addition, its operating on the assumption that the genes are the major part of what produces the final organism. In fact, embryology has shown us that the parent's reproductive system has more to do with the body plan of the sibling than does the sibling's genes (not that genes don't play a role, but the parent's reproductive system governs the major body plan, not the genes).
If you look at the high degree of specificity that large numbers of genes have to have to work correctly together, and the number of times these systems supposedly "convergently evolved" through history, it looks much more like a series of design patterns mixed together in interesting ways, and not a strict hierarchy.
Take for example, the Marsupial wolf. Especially note the similarities in skull structure with the grey wolf (in fact, the majority of differences come from the fact that it is a marsupial). Now, the marsupials supposedly branched from the placentals hundreds of millions of years ago, yet, on completely different continents (thus, completely different "selective pressures"), you have these two creatures nearly identical come about via random copying errors. In addition, the evolutionary rate made them both extant in the same time period. So, you have the same basic body structure, a very, very, very similar skull, and probably the exact same time frame, yet this supposedly came from independent lines of random copying errors.
"To say that one step down divergent paths is possible but 2 or more are not? WTF?"
No, it's saying that random copying errors don't produce complex interactions.
Running my kid's spelling of his name through the copying machine 1,000,000,000 times won't produce Shakespear.
"Just look at canines to see what geographic separation and selective breeding (human-managed sexual selection) managed to do in a just 10,000 years."
Right, this is exactly the kind of evolution that creationists believe in. Existing genes being selected.
Remember, the fossil evidence shows every phyla of animal arising during the Cambrian period (assuming geologic chronology is correct) fully-formed without intermediaries. We have only lost phyla since then. The actual evolutionary tree of life is inverted from what is hypothesized by evolutionists.
In addition, look at homologies vs. analogies. There's no difference between a homology vs an analogy except for where it is believed to have evolved from. But what the data really looks like is a set of design patterns which have been mixed and matched together to produce an interesting creation. Take the marsupial wolf, for instance. Isn't it a bit odd that you have the near re-creation of a wolf, even though evolution supposedly branched marsupials off hundreds of millions of years earlier? Random copying errors just happened to make a near-identical skull. It's very much design patterns.
On top of that, you have the fact that not only are random copying errors supposedly the great generator of all diversity, but that only those genes which are the result of copying errors that had consecutive stable forms are allowed. So, pretty much every gene we have had to be derivative of other genes in a stable fashion. There can't be a single unstable link in the chain.
A bit odd, don't you think?
Especially odd that the different methods of determining molecular phylogeny have very different results.
Please do, I'm enjoying it!
The people who bother to come in and ask are smarter than the ones who are smart on their own. Or maybe "work ethic beats intelligence".
"You can't impune the words coming out of Little George's own mouth by attacking Michael Moore. You can cut out all of Moore's editorializing, stunting and stretching the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 and he still hangs Little George just showing unedited video of him being himself."
Obviously the idea of context eludes you.
"As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase)."
That's not quite correct, even as a paraphrase. It's that the simplest explanations are the most useful for determining future probabilities.
If X is caused by angels acting in accordance with a specific command of God, but they always act consistently with mathematical equation Y, then for determining future probabilities I only need mathematical equation Y -- the angels may in fact be there but their existence is of no use when determining future probabilities.
"you break the biggest assumption of science, that the universe is consistent. Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles."
Actually, technically science is the inquiry into that which behaves consistently. It is not equivalent with the asssumption that everything must behave consistently.
If there is a rule, and one who is able to break the rules, science would simply ignore the breakage as something they couldn't repeat, and move on. Whether you believed "X" occurred or not depends on both evidence and faith (obviously if you've excluded miracles a priori then no amount of evidence would convince you -- it would simply be "an unknown phenomena" or a lie).
"Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE."
Actually, there is very little theology in the Bible. The Bible is mostly a work of history -- the history of God's actions among certain peoples. It also includes practical laws and rules and guidance in being righteous, but nothing approaching theology. Theology is determined inductively from scripture, not really deductively.
"One of ID's other tenets is that speciation and significant morphological changes by evolution alone is impossible"
That's incorrect. They believe that complexity-increasing speciation by evolution alone is impossible.
In addition, while most people falsely assume creationists believe in fixity of the species, they actually believe in a much faster speciation than evolutionists. They just don't believe that new organs arise via speciation.
There are many examples of speciation which don't even have anything to do with genetics. Some wasps have speciated based on the presence of certain bacteria in their gut. They are identical genetically, but something prevents them from mating.
Likewise, speciation can occur due to natural selection, which only involves existing genes, not the generation of new ones.
Speciation can also occur due to environmental factors. Some environmental factors can actually affect gene expression heritably, without affecting the genome itself. The study of this is called epigenetics.
Finally, there is degenerative mutations, which both ID's and creationists believe in. For example, the blind cave fish -- used to be a normal cave fish, but a mutation prevented eye lens develop, which prevented the rest of the eye from developing. This is downward, not upward.
Anyway, speciation happens in a number of ways, and ID's and creationists believe in all of them except the "random mutations resulting in complex structures" ones.
As for your sig, I hope you know that he was making a joke at a conference where presidents normally go to make fun of themselves. He was using the fact that people accuse him of pandering to the rich as a joke line. Apparently, Michael Moore can't put anything into context. You should watch Farenhype 9/11. And it doesn't even deal with the misinformation regarding Iraq's role prior to invasion (for that you should read some of Laurie Mylroie's books).
I haven't read the book, but you think that the Josephus references are just made up?
Remember that we actually have copies of the book of John dating back to 120AD, which is _really_ close to the time it was written. Likewise, the dates of the people who lived who quoted the New Testament also establishes an early date.
By reading the reviews of the books, it seems like the author is trying to disprove the basics of Christianity by arguing in agreement with one of its main tenets (that God is readying all people to know Christ). For more information about this, you should check out Eternity in their Hearts.
I sometimes teach as an adjunct. One time I had six kids:
1 good programmer
3 mediocre programmers
2 bad programmer
The good programmer was lazy, and wound up with a B. The 3 mediocre programmers all got B's. One bad programmer asked for help about once a week, and wound up with the only A in the class. The other bad programmer got a D, because no matter how much I tried to encourage him, he never asked for help.
Well, given that I've never owned a Mac, it would be difficult to classify me as a "fanboy". But let's look at what Apple has done:
iTunes -- the first real, legit music source
iPod -- this has really changed the personal electronics landscape
Mac OS X -- this is the best OS I've ever used. Installing programs is as easy as moving an icon from the CD to your Applications folder. Every device has superb video integration -- each part works well, and works well with each other. On top of all of this, it works great with UNIX and you can even run UNIX applications like GIMP very seamlessly.
I think it could easily take 75% of Microsoft's home market away, and 25% of their business market away if anyone ever bothered to try one out.
And, rumour has it that they are going to release a PC in the sub-$600 price range. Their laptops are pretty cheap already. $1000 for a decent one.
With apple, even the third-party applications are better and have better integration. With Windows and Linux, they both suffer from "too many cooks". With Apple, the whole thing takes a pretty unified vision.
Also, Apple's integration w/ Java is pretty killer, too.
For those of you who missed the reference
I've been wondering where Microsoft has been. Usually they're cooking _something_ up, whether its good or bad. But it seems like this year they have all but dropped off the map.
.NET is gaining some traction, but its not being hyped anymore, and its definitely not the solution MS was saying it was.
Internet Explorer isn't being updated.
Windows Server 2003 is a yawn.
SQL Server hasn't done anything exciting, except come out with a desktop version.
Anything new in Office?
On top of that, they are being slaughtered by Apple who keeps coming out with great things that people need to buy. Apple keeps redefining what the computer experience is. Linux keeps redefining what the server experience is.
Where did Microsoft go? Honestly, I at least expected some vaporware.
What gives? Not that I'm complaining, though.
Some good links from FreeRepublic.
Seems like Dr. Evil and his "laser beam" are finally starting to do their evil deeds!
"The fundamental question is do people generally buy an Apple for the OS?"
I haven't bought one, but it sure is the reason I recommend it to others (if by OS you include applications like the Finder, but not iLife etc.).
The expose' feature is wonderful.
The heavy drag-n-drop integration is beyond anything I'd ever even thought of, and makes it a complete joy to use.
The dock is really cool. I like that it magnifies as you go over the icons, that it points to which applications are open, and that it keeps a thumbnail of minimized windows.
The ability to install an application just by moving a single file into the "Applications" directory is phenomenal.
The single-menu-bar is a fantastic idea.
The system preferences are easy to set and use. Setting up mobile networking was a snap.
And I'm sure I've only scratched the surface.
ACLs suck for system data. Here's why --
;))
you can't audit your system easily. If I want to verify that my permissions are in order in Linux, I do ls -l and can see easily. ACLs blow that idea to smitherenes. Then, when applications don't run, it's usually not obvious which combinations of ACLs need to be changed, so you wind up completely compromising your system just to get one COM application to run.
ACLs for user data? Sure. Makes sense, and Linux has them. ACLs for system data? Shouldn't even be allowed. If I weren't lazy, I'd even use different filesystems for user and system data -- they have completely different access patterns, organization, and security needs. (Of course, on Linux, you _can_ set different partitions to be different filesystems
"UNIX needs proper application packaging with proper self-contained application packages."
Exactly. We all need to steal Mac OS X's design here.
"but a proper message/event marsheling system would eclipse them all."
CORBA is already pervasive in GNOME.
I asked him about this years ago and he said that, basically, he kind of agreed but they had been using "free" for so long, switching terms would be counterproductive.
:)
Legacy language
"As well Religion shouldn't be stating that what scientific observe is wrong or evil because they are just because their observations contradict what their book says."
No religious person I've ever met ever called an _observation_ wrong or evil. What they do sometimes take offense at is people who dismiss the observations of past cultures out-of-hand because it is at odds with some scientist's preconceived notions of uniformitarianism and gradualism.
Scientific investigation into history is not the same as doing observational science. In order to do scientific investigation into history you must assume gradualism and uniformitarianism, but that does _prove_ that they are correct assumptions -- there's no way to go back and verify the assumptions. The certainty that people investigating historical science use when making pronouncement is disturbing, especially considering how much the field has changed in the last 100 years. Of course, the one thing they agree on is that the Bible is wrong compared to whatever model of the universe they are using today, even if their current model is wrong, it certainly isn't wrong in the direction that _Christians_ say. Hmmmm... perhaps there are some unmentioned assumptions there? nah....
"The age of the earth is not mentioned biblically. Indeed, but isn't the creation of everything mentioned? I seem to recall they say he created people just a few days after the earth."
The creation of everything _is_ mentioned, just not when it happened. The Bible opened with (a) God creates the heavens and the earth, then (b) the earth was a wasteland, AND THEN you have the 6 days. The 6 days occurred after the earth and heavens already existed.
You seem to be, in general, taking the false idea that I think that creationism is proven. I do not. However, my point (and you seemed to agree with it at least somewhat) was that the evidence isn't conclusive, and this notion that Bible-believers are anti-science is just plain silly, based mostly on secular mythology (which can be summed up as "all non-secularists are dumber than us, and it doesn't matter if we lie about how dumb they are because they are dumb enough to deserve it").
"Sounds good to me, as religion relies heavily on faith, and faith is really just someone taking guesses."
That's incorrect. You are describing guessing. Faith is trust. I have faith in my Dad that when I'm in trouble, he'll help me. I have faith in that because I have a history with him and that's how he's helped me previously. It's different from proof -- I have no proof that he will help me out, but I have faith.
Likewise, Christianity is a faith based on God's work in His people throughought the ages, and the faith that He continues to work. It's not guessing, but it's not proven, either. It's faith.
"The Earth is flat, because this passage from the Bible talks about God stopping the Sun directly overhead!"
Actually the earliest record of the Earth (a) being round and (b) floating in space come from the Bible. The "flat earth" myth is just that, a myth.
As to the sun stopping overhead, don't you think it's interesting how on the other side of the world there is a record of an extended night?
"Okay, okay! But the celestial bodies are little lights in the sky, and perfect and unblemished, and the go around the Earth!"
That was actually the current science, not a religious idea. As most science, it was superceded by later science.
"But the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, as we can determine from Biblical genealogies!"
Actually, the geneologies indicate the age of _man_, not the earth. The age of the earth is not mentioned biblically. The six days of "creation" was not of the creation of the earth -- which was already there, but was a wasteland (i.e. "without form and void"). Of course, all current geological dates are mere guesses, because they assume many things about the earth and the earth's past that we simply don't know (and are often found to be wrong). Uniformitarianism is an assumed fact, even when data shows it to be wrong. For example, we now know from observations at Mt. St. Helen's that formations like the grand canyon can be formed in days, and it doesn't necessarily take millions of years.
"Um, no, actually, we look an awful lot like other apes, and that's really not a coincidence, and here's the proof."
You're right, it isn't a coincidence -- we have the same designer! Most people like to gloss over the fact that the fossil record does not support evolution. The Cambrian explosion, assuming that it is the result of "millions of years" and not the flood, shows EVERY KNOWN PHYLUM coming into existence fully formed. Since then, we have only LOST phylums to extinction, and have not gained new ones. That is the exact _inverse_ of the tree of life predicted by Darwin and even neo-Darwinists.
So, sure, if you make up what other people believe, you can prove them wrong, and if you ignore the facts, you can prove even more people wrong, and if you call all disproved scientific ideas "religion" then you can say that all bad ideas are religious, since you just defined them that way. But I wouldn't go around arguing that as conclusive proof.
I haven't used Gentoo, but I was pretty sure that the version of Gtk used was based on the version the application was coded for, so if it hasn't been ported to Gtk2 yet, it just uses the Gtk1 widgets.
Otherwise, I imagine RedHat and others would have more consistency between apps.