One thing I'd like to be able to do, is type anything in the address bar. If it isn't in a proper url format (no periods, for example) then it searches google with that text and the "I'm feeling lucky" option.
That way I can just type slashdot, or any of a thousand other websites I might visit commonly, and it will go there automatically. Also good for when I'm looking for something new and feel confident of my googling skills:)
This result could also be achieved by setting shortcuts, but doesn't seem as flexible and powerful.
No evolutionist has. I am amazed at how many claim they understand our position, yet this most fundamental portion of the creationist model they don't even know.
It's like me trying to argue that evolution is logically impossible without having any idea of the processes that are claimed to have it occur (eg, not knowing that according to evolutionary theory traits rose through genetic mutations that were then selected).
I'm not explaining it - I want to see if any evolutionists who say they know the creationist model (the 6000 year old literal 7 day creationist) really do.
I tire of these conversations. If you want to get serious and look at these questions in depth from a creationist perspective, then my e-mail address is tunip at tyreth.homelinux.org.
If you want to try and tell us things we know aren't true (such as creationism not having had a single valid prediction), then don't bother. I've had altogether too many evolutionists who think they understand our position (their summary is "an appeal to magic/omnipotent creator to explain apparent contradictions") but are not interested in discovering if what they believe is true or not.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy the following logic: a. An actor must look good b. A female actor does not look good if she doesn't have "appealing size for Tuxinatorium" breasts. conclusion. Trinity does not have big breasts so therefore she needs them.
I stand by my original post. She can and does look impressive without sexually exciting you. I disagree with both assumption a. and b. An actor can do an excellent job without looking good, and without having a breast size that you find just right.
The fact is, at least physically, men are stronger on average.
Women have also been considered more timid than men on average too, but that is probably a bit of a cultural influence.
It is also true that throughout history, the art of war has been almost entirely the domain of men. It shouldn't be considered strange, in my opinion, that such a field is dominated by males in games. Men are naturally more interested in war (for better or for worse). I don't think adding balanced female presence will draw much more of a female audience, because women mostly just aren't interested in war.
My conclusion would be that different sorts of games would appeal to a female audience. Ones involving more emotion and relationships (I've heard the sims was popular) than destruction and problem solving. I say this because it has been demonstrated and suggested many times that women are more in tune and able to empathise with people's emotions, and less capable with problem solving - less interested in it. While men tend to be the opposite way around.
Of course, there are always exceptions, but they don't make the rule.
I hate it when people judge an actor or another person in the street by their looks.
Who are you to say what she needs? What if she came here and read your post. How do you think she would feel? Is it right to say that about her? Is her role in life to provide you with sexual pleasure?
I think this is plain rude and insulting to her. To any woman, perhaps, who is made to feel that her worth is related to her body.
Though I shouldn't be surprised, given what I've recently seen about the American porn industry. To all you geeks who watch porn, I suggest you read this. Makes me sick.
The way they trick women, and use the lure of money to get them to do things they didn't want to do, it's sickening and depraved.
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand. There are limits on the creationist model. If you've encountered a few christians who say "God did it" to give the appearance of an old earth, or whatever, then please don't take that as an example of the authoritative creationist position.
You will find that the creationist explanation for the finches is ultimately superior to the evolutionary one - it fits the data perfectly, like a glove. And to fit like a glove it must have both expectations and limitations.
But it's just proving my point fabulously. No one has yet explained how the creationist can explain the finches. All they offer are reasons like yours - that creationists will appeal to magic. And so my initial contention is vindicated - that evolutionists don't understand the creationist opinion.
I don't know about the other poster, but evidence against evolution isn't evidence for Christianity, or any other specific religion. It would increase the plausibility that some kind of deity was involved, but it wouldn't convince me of any particular deity.
Evidence for the model described in the Bible is evidence for Christianity and our God. Or do you think otherwise, and why? It would do much to support the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but not much else (certainly not Hinduism, Buddhism or other such religions).
Oh good grief. If you think there is "little" evidence for evolution, then it's quite clear that there isn't anything that you would realistically consider "good" evidence of evolution.
You obviously have never examined the creationist position to see if what you believe is true. I have read a great deal on evolution, not a small amount. I know about the different dating techniques, the process of natural selection, and more.
Tell me I'm wrong about my assumption you've never examined creationism. Otherwise, I suggest you read up some on opposition to your philosophy before you are so quick to be sure that it is "well founded".
It is well grounded in the sense that it is believed by most everyone - not by any weight of evidence for it.
I have read about evolution many times, and it becomes more abundantly clear that it has little evidence to support it's position. It may interest you to know that it was accepted as "what happened" before there was any proof - then the evidence was made to fit the theory. Much like protests of creationists starting with the Bible as their reference point.
Your proposed situation in which you'd abandon atheism is unfair. Can we make it something more realistic? Like if someone were able to demonstrate to you that the earth is young, ~6000 years, and that evolution did not occur. Would that be enough?
I would abandon my position (Christianity) if you were able to demonstrate to me the reverse - that the earth is undoubtedly millions of years old and evolution did occur.
Next question then. All these theories are based on the known speed of a process. How do you know this process has been operating at that speed for all of history? Eg, potassium half-life. How do you know that has always decayed at the same constant rate the last millions of years?
Oh, you think your position is so secure. "Every test designed to disprove the theory has failed". What are you talking about? Evolution is not scientific.
Tell me how you know the earth is so old (4.5 billion last time I heard). This is not a rhetorical question, I want an answer - and not about space. I'm talking about the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I can do it easier than I imagine :) I just need to look into it, and find out which browser will let me do it in Linux.
One thing I'd like to be able to do, is type anything in the address bar. If it isn't in a proper url format (no periods, for example) then it searches google with that text and the "I'm feeling lucky" option.
:)
That way I can just type slashdot, or any of a thousand other websites I might visit commonly, and it will go there automatically. Also good for when I'm looking for something new and feel confident of my googling skills
This result could also be achieved by setting shortcuts, but doesn't seem as flexible and powerful.
Mozilla has had it as an option for quite a while, just turned off by default.
Galeon, using the mozilla browser, has had it on by default for a long time.
On a slightly related note, I've heard they've fixed up the problem with slow tabs in Konqueror in CVS - I'm looking forward to that.
You and the rest of the world.
That aggravated me, but I think there was an option. Doesn't really matter though since I use Galeon fo now.
No evolutionist has. I am amazed at how many claim they understand our position, yet this most fundamental portion of the creationist model they don't even know.
It's like me trying to argue that evolution is logically impossible without having any idea of the processes that are claimed to have it occur (eg, not knowing that according to evolutionary theory traits rose through genetic mutations that were then selected).
I'm not explaining it - I want to see if any evolutionists who say they know the creationist model (the 6000 year old literal 7 day creationist) really do.
I tire of these conversations. If you want to get serious and look at these questions in depth from a creationist perspective, then my e-mail address is tunip at tyreth.homelinux.org.
If you want to try and tell us things we know aren't true (such as creationism not having had a single valid prediction), then don't bother. I've had altogether too many evolutionists who think they understand our position (their summary is "an appeal to magic/omnipotent creator to explain apparent contradictions") but are not interested in discovering if what they believe is true or not.
Ah, I understand. So if I tempt someone to do something that is wrong, and they agree, then it's their fault and I hold no blame?
I'm sorry, I just don't buy the following logic:
a. An actor must look good
b. A female actor does not look good if she doesn't have "appealing size for Tuxinatorium" breasts.
conclusion. Trinity does not have big breasts so therefore she needs them.
I stand by my original post. She can and does look impressive without sexually exciting you. I disagree with both assumption a. and b. An actor can do an excellent job without looking good, and without having a breast size that you find just right.
Women have also been considered more timid than men on average too, but that is probably a bit of a cultural influence.
It is also true that throughout history, the art of war has been almost entirely the domain of men. It shouldn't be considered strange, in my opinion, that such a field is dominated by males in games. Men are naturally more interested in war (for better or for worse). I don't think adding balanced female presence will draw much more of a female audience, because women mostly just aren't interested in war.
My conclusion would be that different sorts of games would appeal to a female audience. Ones involving more emotion and relationships (I've heard the sims was popular) than destruction and problem solving. I say this because it has been demonstrated and suggested many times that women are more in tune and able to empathise with people's emotions, and less capable with problem solving - less interested in it. While men tend to be the opposite way around.
Of course, there are always exceptions, but they don't make the rule.
Who are you to say what she needs? What if she came here and read your post. How do you think she would feel? Is it right to say that about her? Is her role in life to provide you with sexual pleasure?
I think this is plain rude and insulting to her. To any woman, perhaps, who is made to feel that her worth is related to her body.
Though I shouldn't be surprised, given what I've recently seen about the American porn industry. To all you geeks who watch porn, I suggest you read this. Makes me sick.
The way they trick women, and use the lure of money to get them to do things they didn't want to do, it's sickening and depraved.
You will find that the creationist explanation for the finches is ultimately superior to the evolutionary one - it fits the data perfectly, like a glove. And to fit like a glove it must have both expectations and limitations.
But it's just proving my point fabulously. No one has yet explained how the creationist can explain the finches. All they offer are reasons like yours - that creationists will appeal to magic. And so my initial contention is vindicated - that evolutionists don't understand the creationist opinion.
Evidence for the model described in the Bible is evidence for Christianity and our God. Or do you think otherwise, and why? It would do much to support the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but not much else (certainly not Hinduism, Buddhism or other such religions).
You obviously have never examined the creationist position to see if what you believe is true. I have read a great deal on evolution, not a small amount. I know about the different dating techniques, the process of natural selection, and more.
Tell me I'm wrong about my assumption you've never examined creationism. Otherwise, I suggest you read up some on opposition to your philosophy before you are so quick to be sure that it is "well founded".
It is well grounded in the sense that it is believed by most everyone - not by any weight of evidence for it.
I have read about evolution many times, and it becomes more abundantly clear that it has little evidence to support it's position. It may interest you to know that it was accepted as "what happened" before there was any proof - then the evidence was made to fit the theory. Much like protests of creationists starting with the Bible as their reference point.
Please read this post.
This is a question between different religions, and not at all relevant to the discussion of evolution and creation.
I have reasons for praying to the God of the Bible over these other gods, but not important to mention here.
Your proposed situation in which you'd abandon atheism is unfair. Can we make it something more realistic? Like if someone were able to demonstrate to you that the earth is young, ~6000 years, and that evolution did not occur. Would that be enough?
I would abandon my position (Christianity) if you were able to demonstrate to me the reverse - that the earth is undoubtedly millions of years old and evolution did occur.
I don't recall mentioning my personal experiences awith God as evidence.
Next question then. All these theories are based on the known speed of a process. How do you know this process has been operating at that speed for all of history? Eg, potassium half-life. How do you know that has always decayed at the same constant rate the last millions of years?
I am referring, of course, to your assumption that I believe the world *appears* to be old while in fact literally being young.
My e-mail account is tunip @ tyreth.homelinux.org
Exactly. The immunity in the bacteria already existed - the mouth wash just wiped out all those who weren't immume.
I think that creationists try to avoid the term microevolution because it can be a confusing way to describe what we believe.
Oh, you think your position is so secure. "Every test designed to disprove the theory has failed". What are you talking about? Evolution is not scientific.
Tell me how you know the earth is so old (4.5 billion last time I heard). This is not a rhetorical question, I want an answer - and not about space. I'm talking about the earth.
Ooh, I was just about to reply then I noticed it was you Black Parrot! Hi, and bye.
Fair enough, sorry. I should have checked first :)