I excercise heavily one night a week, other than that nothing much really.
I have discovered a few things that make me feel better or worse. It's not necessarily related to how much sleep I get, but instead when I sleep. Example, if I sleep in past 9-10am, then I start to dream very vividly. This is true whether I went to bed at 1am or 5am, the more vivid dreaming starts at the same time of day.
I find I am most alert from (generally) 7am-11am, and 11pm-3am. Sleeping inside those tmes I find more difficult and less restful. If I feel sleepy, and have a snooze in the afternoon 3pm-7pm roughly, then I feel really refreshed.
As for diet, not good, but I've been looking at it more closely, trying to improve it. My diet I'd say is better than the average population, but still not good.
I have been for a few years teaching a similar principle - that people have a potential to learn a lot better outside of school.
Unfortunately we have come to believe that education=school=learning.
Learning can be done entirely seperate from schooling/education - education means systematic instruction, schooling. Education/schooling is just one method for helping people learn. For me, this system was a hindrance.
Something that makes me really sad, is when I see people come out of school and say they hate learning. Learning is one of my greatest joys, and I'm sure many in the opensource community also share the joys of learning with me.
This story affirms what I already felt - that we don't need formal institutes with structured learning, recognised exams, etc, for people to learn. Instead, like Telent said, give them the material (or let them choose their own path of learning), and help when they need help.
I taught myself C/C++, Linux, PHP, server software, I'm teaching myself another language, etc. While I was in school I was angry. I already knew what I wanted to learn and do, but the system in place wouldn't allow me this choice. Not just that, but it taught me in methods alien to my natural way of learning.
I think school has a place for some, but definately not as compulsory, and definately not advertised as something for the superior, but just one option. I actually have doubts that school is best for anyone - they claim that they wouldn't learn if there was no school. I reply that they don't learn even with school, and that attitude of not wanting to learn is also something taught as a result of school.
This story is a great affirmation, and I was pleased by your post Telent.
I am sleepy constantly. Doesn't matter how much or how little I sleep the night before, I will never feel fully awake. I have learned to live with this and can still do everything normal.
Caffeine also seems to make me sleepy.
I'm not sure that I'd want to start taking a pill that gets rid of it. I hate being depenand on anything.
I think Linux/Unix is already established well enough in the network server market that this will be no problem. Companies will still have to produce network cards with full electronics - or produce Linux drivers - ensuring that Microsoft will fail if this is a strategy to help push away competitor operating systems.
Winmodems were a barrier for linux, but network cards are cheap and people will probably consider them inferior in design if they won't work on Linux. Linux servers are becoming popular in the average house, very well respected. This won't be seen as a weakness of Linux/Unix, but instead a weakness of the card itself.
This news puts a smile on my face. I opposed hailstorm on two seperate but related levels:
1. Gives Microsoft an even greater control over the market
2. Removes more power from the average user and places it at the mercy of large companies
In my experience people are losing patience with Microsoft. The average person is open to alternatives now, and I'm finding an increasing acceptance of the potential of linux on the desktop. I don't mind if Linux dominates the desktop or not (though I suspect it may) - I just want to be able to chose to use the software I want, without companies forcing you to live according to their culture and lifestyle.
No nation lasts forever - every empire falls. I don't think it would be ever possible for one company or nation to have dominance, over thousands of years they have all failed - and in this case, thankfully, history repeats itself.
The world does not hate America because it is so far advanced and "leaving the world behind". I live in a different nation and benefit from America's technological advances (as America does from Israel, Australia, etc). While America is ahead, I don't think it is so far that no other nation can catch up.
The reason for the hatred stems from a much different source. Living in a certain culture you naturally find it hard to look outside and consider alternatives and other possibilities. America is hated for it's strong culture (meaning that it pushes itself on others, where other cultures may be more accepting of different lifestyles), for it's intervention in international affairs (esp. Iraq sanctions, Israel, etc), it's hypocrisy (nuclear weapons, etc), capitalist greed, history of assassinations/meddling (Enron and oil pipe through Afghanistan), etc.
Please don't pin the hatred to technology. A lot who hate America benefit in one way or another from the technology.
They are not trying to make any philosophical/novel statement on the innacuracies of maths in the Simpsons. It is instead something for entertainment, and to serve as a method for getting students to start thinking about maths in a way that's fun, challenging, and friendly rather than daunting.
The introduction to slashdot is flattering to say the least. It almost sounds like they had this second interview just to get the extra hits to their site:)
Regarding rewriting software from the ground up. I agree there are circumstances where keeping old code and updaying it is best. But I can't agree that it always is the best solution. If you build on a bad foundation then your code will not naturally be able to handle innovations of the future, and so adding new portions will be slow and painful. Redesigning at a certain point when the end goal is in mind may reduce the total programming time since a good architecture should lend itself to speedy programming.
>Or, here's an argument that even the youngest slashdotters will understand.
>The WWW is bloatware. Finding things is impossible because there's so much
>stuff out there. Think how much hard drive space is wasted on all kinds of
>web pages that only.00000000001% of the world ever reads. Since the vast
>majority of people only go to Yahoo, Ebay, and MSN, wouldn't the WWW be better
>if it only had Yahoo, Ebay, and MSN? It would be much more "optimized."
This is a terrible example. The internet is a portal to web pages, it is not the webpages itself. Yahoo is a portal by which people connect to webpages. As for Ebay and MSN, if we just had them the internet would be extremely boring. I doubt that they account for the 99.99999999999% webhits that he's talking about. This argument is like saying Microsoft should only offer Windows XP, Microsoft Office, and a file browser (but without the hard disk or the files to browse). Anything else is bloatware. He missed the point. The argument of extra features that are used by 0.1% is the equivalent of a mouse inverter for the desktop, or some other trivial feature that you don't include in the OS, but a rare few might find useful. Removing such features, or making them available for download as extra features, is closer to the argument. I don't enjoy the way he patronises us with this example when it is completely irrelevant.
>The good news is that a lot of stuff I write about UI is starting to have an
>impact on the Gnome and KDE people. There's a lot more appreciation for the
>value of good UI than there used to be in the Linux community. Once every
>open-sourcer has seen their marriage break up by installing Linux on their
>non-technical spouse's computer, they'll finally understand that, no, most
>people don't prefer command lines.
Yeah, that's why we hear so many stories of Grandma's, parent's and wives who have linux installed on their computer and exclaim "This is so much easier to use!". Does he have any evidence of this, or is he just presuming that Linux is hopeless on the desktop? Oh wait, he's talking about the commandline. I guess you'd have to be pretty confident in your Grandparent's computing abilities to install linux without X+KDE/Gnome.
That is complete FUD. Linux is very usable in it's current form.
You say 8 half-working text editors? vi and other console editors are not half-working, and are very useful when you can't afford a remote graphical session, or any other situation where a GUI is not possible or unecessary. As for GUI text editors, gedit, kedit and kwrite all beat notepad hands down. I don't see notepad with features for highlighting based on the language you are saving the text document as. How can you possibly say that notepad beats these common text editors in linux?
You obviously haven't tried linux properly at all. Consider this hypothetical situation - someone is brought up for 20 years using only linux (never heard of windows) in it's current form (KDE 2.2.2, etc). Then they hear about this whizbang operating system called Windows. They decide to give it a whirl as you just did. I'm sure that 15 minutes into the session they would be frustrated when they:
Can't tweak the settings of the system
Can't flick into a console during a game or some other full-screen application to change options
Can't run it on a really old system at a decent speed without a GUI
Can't install software they need without having to fork out another $50 for each package
Can't enjoy the features of a full text editor like vi, gedit or kwrite.
Can't set up an account for their pesky brother or friend who knows just enough to be dangerous, and limit their ability to modify/delete vital system files. Or prevent them from overwriting your personal settings
Can't, if capable, create complex shell scripts to perform manipulations on files that GUI's can only dream of.
Can't customise much of their GUI at all (eg, can't remove start bar, can't add menu's or applets to the start bar, etc)
...and so on.
Can you see what is wrong in this example? First of all, this hypothetical person used it for only 15 minutes, not enough time for a full evaluation. Also, this person had grown up using something different, so they favored all the pet features and benefits of their own operating system, while completely missing the good features of the rival operating system. Since they had grown up with this operating system, it's in their mind of how computers should work.
So, until you give it a proper try, it will remain obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.
Why can't Mandrake wait another month for a release so it can include both KDE 3 and GNOME 2? Good thing about having a recent distro for me is it means less software to upgrade after a fresh install, but Mandrake 8.2 looks old before it's even out (Evolution 1.01, Apache 1.3.22, etc). True, a lot of the time it doesn't matter, but the bleeding edge is one reason why I enjoy Mandrake.
Just because there are more racist people in the world than this guy you presume that he is not racist? That's not logical.
>HA - that's funny! At least he doesnt go around
>blowing up innocent people in the name of some
>loser like the titiban (or is that taliho, or
>tali - something)
Are you talking about the Taliban? They don't murder innocent people in the name of the Taliban you twonk. They claim to do it for Allah, which is the arabic translation of the Hebrew word Eli - Elohim, which is who we westerners call God.
>It's one thing to troll on a website - its
>completely different when you losers bomb
>innocent people - THAT is the difference.
That's like a thief saying "I don't have to stop stealing $50 from the local newsagent when there are people stealing millions of dollars from corporations". That's just stupid. They both have to stop. Don't remove his responsibility because of another's actions. He should take responsibility for his own actions.
While he may not bomb innocent people America certainly has had it's fair share of racist killings, and that's the same feelings, the same hatred (in fact it is much less rational than the Taliban/Al-Qaeda's hatred of America).
And don't talk about them as if I am one. Do you have a talent for ignorance that you choose to put people into categories so you don't have to understand them? I don't bomb Americans, nor do I bomb Afghanistan people, nor do I prohibit people from necessary food/medical supplies resulting in needless death.
The world's not as simple as you think. Attitudes shape the world, even if you don't act on them.
You are a fool. No wonder Muslims like Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and half the world that aren't Muslims have so much anger at you.
You are racist beyond belief, greedy, proud, violent, unconcerned with others outside your nation.
How about you be careful in future of what reputation you build for your nation? Others might not appreciate you building a bad name for them (I presume of course that you are American because you made references to both "nigger" and "arab/muslim").
You think that's the only reason? You mean you haven't heard them complaining about the UN sanctions on Iraq that directly contribute to around 250 innocent civilian deaths a day? You don't think that around 7500 deaths a month of their brothers and sisters justifies at least some anger against western nations, if America is allowed to feel anger at a mere 5000 deaths in a once-off event? (yes, mere 5000 in comparison to 7500 a month for years). Or what about them perceiving Israel as having killed hundreds/thousands of Palestinians (I don't agree with that, but it is still a legitimate concern). Don't get any braindead ideas that I support civilian deaths - I oppose it on EITHER side. I just hate ignorant replies like yours that don't understand some of the real feelings and anger behind these people.
And if you think America treats women so well, then why when they wear miniskirts, bikini's, playboy, etc, do men look at them as objects to fulfill their lust and not as people? That seems real healthy to me - full of respect.
Pax Americana. There are other cultures and you would do well to try to understand your enemy. As a wise man/God said, "and why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:2).
>full-scale Protestant vs. Islam war which could last for centuries.
While I agree it could degenerate into an Islam vs something war, I don't believe the protestant part. Most protestants worldwide are not militant like in Ireland. The title Christianity has under it a very wide variety of beliefs and attitudes, from pacifists to militants, and everything in between. However, from my experience there are not enough militant ones (at least in most western nations) to form any kind of fighting force.
The more likely war seems to be Islam vs Jews, since the name of Islam is symbolic and not literal in the context of a world war(since many of us know Muslims that disagree with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden) and so is the title of Jew. The terrorists in Israel see America and Israel as a Jewish/Zionist group, and that is the symbolic title we are probably heading for.
With KDE3 the cut&paste complaint becomes irrelevant. here
you can see a list of changes including:
a new clipboard system to satisfy the preferences of all users:
KDE continues to offer the standard X-type clipboard; selected text is copied to this clipboard, and clicking the middle mouse button pastes the contents of this clipboard; and
KDE also offers a complementary, independent Windows/Mac-type clipboard; text is inserted in the clipboard using an application's cut/copy (or generally Ctrl-x, Ctrl-c) function, and the application's paste (or generally Ctrl-v) function pastes the contents of this clipboard;
The cut&paste issue will be completely irrelevant when KDE 3 comes out. I vaguely remember reading that it would come with two options: standard linux cut&paste or windows-like cut and paste. How can you complain against options like that?
Wasn't the response to the American DoJ trial with Microsoft of a similar volume? Around 25,000 responses from a population of 250million. You need to compare it to things like the number of people that want windows machines, and see if the 25,000 exceeds it. Chances are that most of the population doesn't really care too much.
It points out that this new 'discover' is not all it cracked up to be, which was my initial reaction from reading it.
Two more things please:
1. Don't call evolution or creation 'science 'please. They simply are not. Check out the meaning somewhere.
2. Please try and understand the creation argument BEFORE you start refuting it. I'd bet that most people here posting about the 'lunatic creationists' wouldn't have a clue what their actual arguments are. There are exceptions, so please ignore this if you are one of them.
I wouldn't stake my hopes on those dates either. There are good dating methods that show earth to be younger than 60million years old (unacceptable to macro-evolution), and others that show even younger.
I wouldn't trust the current dating methods for dates we aren't certain of when it doesn't give correct results for dates we do know. One can use these dating methods and receive wildly innacurate results for events we are certain of.
There is a such thing as macroevolution. Just because in the english language we can't differentiate between 'you' singular and 'you' plural does not mean that those two different conditions do not exist. Micro-evolution is the variation in species from already existing genes - micro-evolution is not about mutations. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, rests entirely on mutations, and is unobservable and speculative, and therefore not true science. Just because you don't like to split the two, doesn't mean that the difference is not there.
I'm sure you already understand it, but I'll make it clear anyway. If two parents have the genes for green hair (as a wild example), and these genes are recessive. The two pass on this same gene so the child has green hair. Typically, those who support macroevolution would look at this and say 'See? They've changed, and if it's beneficial then this person will be more likely to survive, and therefore evolution progresses'. This is partially true - natural selection does, by and large, work, just like flipping a coin 10 times gives you roughly 5 heads and 5 tails. The problem is this was dealing with genes already present, so there was no modification, only the passing on of already existing genes. This is micro-evolution - macro-evolution deals with mutations leading to the creation (eventually) of new species.
A creationist argues that genetic mutations are an woefully insufficient explanation for the creation of new species over time, and points out that what is used for evidence of macro-evolution is only actually micro-evolution, which is totally consistent with the creationists model for the world.
I don't pretend to understand this article, because my understanding of creationism and macro-evolution while better than most, is still inadequate.
Still, from what I could gather this still doesn't address some fundamental questions.
This deals with information already present. We are still lacking the fundamental information to make evolution credible - where did these genes that control all others like a master switch come from? This is working with information already present, which a creationist (I presume) would just argue were from the initial creation. Macro-evolution still needs to explain how these creatures came to this state.
Another problem is that when dealing with mutations we don't gain information, we only change.
All this article does is counter a small % of the arguments presented against evolution, while at the same time providing even more evidence of the intricacy and amazing design of the initial creation. This shouldn't, as far as I can tell, be trumpeted as such a breakthrough.
I would love someone to enlighten me if I have missed a major point.
I will give you a summary of the creationist view as much as I understand it. I am
bound to make mistakes, so I apologise now. My understanding is not perfect and I
am open to criticism, so long as it is rational and logical.
>The only thing I would like to say is that you have presented people with a
>challenge to disprove creationsim without any sort of knowledge as to what you
>think creationism is.
Two things to say on this:
1. What creationism is was mostly irrelevant for my post. I did touch on it
just so that people knew that I had an alternative if macro-evolution was shown
false. My argument was basically an attack on evolution rather than a defence
of creationism.
2. No-one has had to describe what the theory of evolution is to me, I already
knew what it was. It would be nice if people bothered to understand the
creationist argument before they decided it was the illogical rant of a few
fanatics. Some have said that it is different for each person - this is
somewhat true, but is also true for those who argue for macro-evolution.
>You seem to jump topic and switch arguments and viewpoints anytime someone is
>anywhere close to disproving it.
I can't remember switching viewpoints anytime. Please point out to me where I
did this. As for jumping topics, I can only guess what you mean but I suppose it was
a result of me trying to respond to the great variety of responses I received
appropriately - as such requiring a jumping of topics as they jumped. In all the
responses though I didn't find one that actually understood my challenge (perhaps my
fault, or perhaps theirs), instead some off-topic responses of personal problems
they had in the way they described it. Kind of like saying "You should have done
this sentence on a new line, therefore your argument is wrong". I know this is an
extreme example, but it highlights the fact that no-one addressed the problem I
presented against evolution.
As for those comments of mine that you think are contradictory, I fail to see the
contradictory nature. Have you ever enganged in a philosophical discussion? You
probably have without realising it. This discussion right now is philosophical, not
scientific. It is a discussion of evidence, logica, rational and clear thinking (or
lack of). Just because our definition of science in common culture has become
distorted, does not mean that people can claim that something unscientific is
irrational. Please try and look up and understand what philosophy and science are,
and you will most likely find that my statements were not contradictory.
My views and definitions
-
I must give a little introduction to explain why I say some things and why I think
it is reasonable:
My understanding of the world, history, morality, humanity, government, etc, is
founded in what is written in the Bible. As one who believes in macro-evolution
bases their beliefs on the presumption that macro-evolution must have occurred, and
then proceeds to find evidence that supports it, so I do with the Bible. I believe
that if what the Bible teaches is true, then we must expect to see certain things.
So that is what I will tell you. The argument is whether the available data fits
the things that the Bible proclaims, or whether the data contradicts it. I believe
that the data fits what the Bible says but contradicts what macro-evolution teaches.
This is the essence of the argument.
Now for my definitions and views:
I believe in Elohim, the Creator God, who created us all in His image, who exists in
three Persons but one God. This God is omnipresent, so has no location. He is
omipotent - all powerful, since through Him everything was created. He is also
omniscient, so no secret can be hidden from Him. Our God (since He is the Creator
of us all) can do no evil, and will bring all men into judgement before His thrown
on the day of judgement. This time is yet to come, but for now men continue as they
have, with a few receieving His grace - having all their evil totally forgiven of
them.
I believe that the world was created by Him roughly 6000 years ago, with a literal
7 days before it was considered complete. You can find out in Genesis 1 what
happened on each of these days.
I believe that on the sixth day land animals and humans were created. Of each animal
that it is appropriate (as some have no gender) they were created male and female,
one of each. The first man's name was Adam, who's name in the Hebrew sometimes also
is interpreted as "Man". His wife was Eve, and they are the parents of all men alive
today, our common ancestor.
In the beginning, when the earth was young, Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden
and walked with God. They were given rulership over the entire earth - plants,
animals, and the soil. This was around 6000 years ago, as I said earlier. At this
time when God gave them dominion over everything, He said that they could not eat
the fruit from one tree, the fruit of knowledge between good and evil. At some time
later (less than 100 years after Adam was created, I think), the serpent came and
tempted Eve to eat the fruit. She disobeyed God and ate the fruit. Adam also took
and ate the fruit. This serpent was Satan, the great deceiver and father of lies.
Before an absurd idea enters your mind that people commonly fall for, this Satan is
not the equal opposite of God. Evil is not the opposite of good (consider that right
and left are different opposites to hot and cold, since one is to do with symetry,
while the other involves the presence or absence of moving molecules). As such,
Satan is a created being like us, probably once one of the Angels of God (more on
this later). Satan will be judged along with every other wicked creature that has
disobeyed God. Satan, even now, is incapable of doing anything unless God first
allows him (read the start of Job to understand this more).
Back to the story (as true history and fairy tale are likewise called) of our
origins. After this fruit was eaten, Adam & Eve had disobeyed our Creator and as
such immediately fell subject to His judgement. He punished them as is described in
Genesis 3, near the end. They were cast out of the Garden and forced to work the
ground for their food, as we continue to do today. After this, the Bible lists
around 10 generations of offspring up until a man named Noah. A conservative
estimate of the population of the earth at this time is around 1 billion people,
likely to be more. The earth at this time was filled with great evil, men doing
horrible things. So God decided to destroy every man, except for Noah and His
family, because Noah was a righteous man. So God commanded Noah to build an ark, a
giant boat with which to save him and two of every creature (excepting of course the
creatures of the sea). Now there have been many arguments that this is impossible,
but I have seen most/all of them, and they are all based on assumptions. We don't
know exactly how it was done, but suffice to say it was possible - the only argument
against it follows this logic - "If we presume , then it would be impossible".
So anyway, Noah and His family escaped on this ark while God opened up the fountains
of the deep and the waters of heaven, and flooded the entire earth. Some say there
is not enough water - this again follows similar logic to above. The earth before
the flood was tremendously different to what we say, so it is pointless to argue
saying that given today's geography we could not cover the earth. For one no ocean
basins would have needed to exist before the flood. If the ocean floors were risen to
ground level, imagine how much land would be above water.
Back on track - from this man Noah and his sons came all the humans alive today,
along with the animals that were on the ark came the animals alive today. As the
population of the earth grew they spread out to cover it. This flood occurred
roughly 1632 years after the initial creation. It lasted for a little over a year
before the waters receded and Noah and his family could walk on ground again. Once
the earth was beginning to get filled again, men were of one language and began to
build for themselves a tower to reach into the heavens. God came down and saw what
they were doing and said that if we could build this tower then nothing would be
kept from us. Therefore He confused our languages so that we could not communicate
and finish the tower. He then scattered us across the earth, so that we now find
pockets of people with different languages in each part of the world, but we find in
some places similarity of design in buildings (such as pyramids), and occasionaly a
similarity in history (for most cultures around the world have the story of this
flood in their history, and likewise there was a story of God extending the day once
so the Israelites could complete a battle, there are stories on opposite side of the
world, I have been told, that tell of a night where the darkness was extended). And
so man was scattered, waged war, and history progressed. Then a man named Abraham
was born, who was also righteous, and God made a promise that from his seed all
nations would be blessed. Abraham is the father of our promise in God, that we
should be saved from the judgement. This promise was passed on through Abraham to
Isaac and then to Jacob, who's name was changed to Israel. The promise passed over
Jacob's brother Esau. It is this Israel that the Hebrews today, who call themselves
Jews, were born from. They were the children of the promis, a blessing to the
nations.
From the very beginning when Adam sinned, through Noah, Abraham, Moses and all the
prophets, they all pointed towards the promise of God, a single man, a prophet
greater than Moses who would save the world from sin. It is this man that the Jews
call the Messiah, who was the man Jesus the Christ, who was also God. He was the
hope that all the prophets looked towards, their salvation. This man Jesus was born
around the year 0, perhaps 4 AD (I can't really remember). He was born from a
virgin so that the prophecy concerning Him could be fulfilled. He grew in wisdom
and stature quickly, and in Him was no fault. When His time came He wandered around
Israel teaching the Jews inner mysteries, but not all believed, but only those to
whom it was given. Then came our moment of redemption - He was betrayed by Judas
to the Jews who then demanded He be killed. So Jesus, without fault, was nailed to
the Cross as our sacrificial lamb, one who would take our punishment so that we could
stand blameless before God on judgement day. Jesus was the reason that the Law was
written, and without Him none could hope to possibly escape God's judgement. So
now on Pentacost after Jesus death, God sent His Spirit to those who believed that
He could live inside them, a seal that we are His and will not be held accountable.
As such, we who have been saved love and worship God, and live for nothing but to
please Him. So then, although if we were to murder we would be forgiven, it is not
in our heart to do so because He works in us to cleanse us from our evil desires -
though this work will not be completed until the resurrection.
So now, those who have received the promise wait eagerly for the day of Jesus return
when He will bring judgement rather than salvation, and cleanse the earth. At that
time men will be afraid and wish to die, but be unable to find death. Those who
have been saved eagerly await it because they will finally be freed from their
mortal bodies and the evil desires that are with it, and can live and worship our
Creator in full. For those who are not sons and daughters of the promise, this day
of His return will be full of disaster and upset. It will continue for 7 years at
which time Jesus the Christ will set up a kingdom to rule for 1000 years. After this
we have not been fully instructed, but presumably it is the time when evil is once
and for all removed, and we can live in full with God. For now, the sons and
daughters of His promise continue as His servants, seeking to please Him as much as
He enables each of us, and teaching others of the things He has commanded us, the
greatest of which are:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all
your strength, and
Love your neighbour as yourself (for no man has ever hated himself).
This history was necessary. A creationist is one who has tasted the salvation of
God and has the Spirit of God dwelling in him/her, and so cannot deny the God who
is their salvation.
Some key factors of this:
* All genetic variety seen today must have existed in the original two created kinds
* The earth must not be older than around 6,000 years. As such, a creationist is led
to dispute the dating methods which lead to dates older than this (and with good
cause, because in situtations when we know the age these methods report back grossly
innacurate dates). There are also some dating methods that contradict what
macro-evolution would expect, and some dating methods directly support 6,000 year
old earth
* There was a flood around 4000 years ago that covered the earth and wiped out all
animals and humans, except for two of each kind.
* There is a God who created all things.
* The human also has a spirit, which animals do not possess. The spirit is immortal
but the body is mortal.
* There are demons, spirits that have disobeyed God and seek to deceive men.
* There are angels who are servants of God to do His will. The angels have
tremendous power, but again, I say, are servants of God and not deserving of our
worship (only God is)
Evolution is not science, creation theory is not science. They are both philosophy. Look up what these are and you will see.
-
I mean, I am an athiest, but I don't see how evolution harms believers, in and of itself!
-
Correction, you are an agnostic. Since you cannot actually disprove God, you merely think that there is no God, but would (if you were honest) accept that there is a God if it could be demonstrated. Evolution, or macro-evolution, if true, would undermine the accuracy of the Bible in historical matters - if it cannot be trusted in historical matters, then we have no certainty that it can be trusted in matters of morality and spirituality.
Also, the Pope does not speak for me any more than a businessman in the heart of India. I am not a Catholic - the Bible speaks for me.
Also, I have seen a multitude of proof to affirm the existence of God (as if such a thing needed proving, with such an abundance of evidence). Christianity is simultaneously the religion most likely to be true, and the easiest to disprove if not true. I would be interested to see how you could attack religion.
The ICR does not violate logic, but it is certainly not scientific. Neither is evolution scientific - please look up what is science somewhere (not a dictionary, it's too brief), and you will see what I mean.
Also, I don't consider a college text a good start for matters of evolution where people's basis for their existence is questioned - bias is inevitable and is present. Much better is to understand the arguments yourself to analyse it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your reply
I excercise heavily one night a week, other than that nothing much really.
I have discovered a few things that make me feel better or worse. It's not necessarily related to how much sleep I get, but instead when I sleep. Example, if I sleep in past 9-10am, then I start to dream very vividly. This is true whether I went to bed at 1am or 5am, the more vivid dreaming starts at the same time of day.
I find I am most alert from (generally) 7am-11am, and 11pm-3am. Sleeping inside those tmes I find more difficult and less restful. If I feel sleepy, and have a snooze in the afternoon 3pm-7pm roughly, then I feel really refreshed.
As for diet, not good, but I've been looking at it more closely, trying to improve it. My diet I'd say is better than the average population, but still not good.
I have been for a few years teaching a similar principle - that people have a potential to learn a lot better outside of school.
/education - education means systematic instruction, schooling. Education/schooling is just one method for helping people learn. For me, this system was a hindrance.
Unfortunately we have come to believe that education=school=learning.
Learning can be done entirely seperate from schooling
Something that makes me really sad, is when I see people come out of school and say they hate learning. Learning is one of my greatest joys, and I'm sure many in the opensource community also share the joys of learning with me.
This story affirms what I already felt - that we don't need formal institutes with structured learning, recognised exams, etc, for people to learn. Instead, like Telent said, give them the material (or let them choose their own path of learning), and help when they need help.
I taught myself C/C++, Linux, PHP, server software, I'm teaching myself another language, etc.
While I was in school I was angry. I already knew what I wanted to learn and do, but the system in place wouldn't allow me this choice. Not just that, but it taught me in methods alien to my natural way of learning.
I think school has a place for some, but definately not as compulsory, and definately not advertised as something for the superior, but just one option. I actually have doubts that school is best for anyone - they claim that they wouldn't learn if there was no school. I reply that they don't learn even with school, and that attitude of not wanting to learn is also something taught as a result of school.
This story is a great affirmation, and I was pleased by your post Telent.
I am sleepy constantly. Doesn't matter how much or how little I sleep the night before, I will never feel fully awake. I have learned to live with this and can still do everything normal.
Caffeine also seems to make me sleepy.
I'm not sure that I'd want to start taking a pill that gets rid of it. I hate being depenand on anything.
Winmodems were a barrier for linux, but network cards are cheap and people will probably consider them inferior in design if they won't work on Linux. Linux servers are becoming popular in the average house, very well respected. This won't be seen as a weakness of Linux/Unix, but instead a weakness of the card itself.
1. Gives Microsoft an even greater control over the market
2. Removes more power from the average user and places it at the mercy of large companies
In my experience people are losing patience with Microsoft. The average person is open to alternatives now, and I'm finding an increasing acceptance of the potential of linux on the desktop. I don't mind if Linux dominates the desktop or not (though I suspect it may) - I just want to be able to chose to use the software I want, without companies forcing you to live according to their culture and lifestyle.
No nation lasts forever - every empire falls. I don't think it would be ever possible for one company or nation to have dominance, over thousands of years they have all failed - and in this case, thankfully, history repeats itself.
The reason for the hatred stems from a much different source. Living in a certain culture you naturally find it hard to look outside and consider alternatives and other possibilities. America is hated for it's strong culture (meaning that it pushes itself on others, where other cultures may be more accepting of different lifestyles), for it's intervention in international affairs (esp. Iraq sanctions, Israel, etc), it's hypocrisy (nuclear weapons, etc), capitalist greed, history of assassinations/meddling (Enron and oil pipe through Afghanistan), etc.
Please don't pin the hatred to technology. A lot who hate America benefit in one way or another from the technology.
They are not trying to make any philosophical/novel statement on the innacuracies of maths in the Simpsons. It is instead something for entertainment, and to serve as a method for getting students to start thinking about maths in a way that's fun, challenging, and friendly rather than daunting.
Regarding rewriting software from the ground up. I agree there are circumstances where keeping old code and updaying it is best. But I can't agree that it always is the best solution. If you build on a bad foundation then your code will not naturally be able to handle innovations of the future, and so adding new portions will be slow and painful. Redesigning at a certain point when the end goal is in mind may reduce the total programming time since a good architecture should lend itself to speedy programming.
>Or, here's an argument that even the youngest slashdotters will understand. .00000000001% of the world ever reads. Since the vast
>The WWW is bloatware. Finding things is impossible because there's so much
>stuff out there. Think how much hard drive space is wasted on all kinds of
>web pages that only
>majority of people only go to Yahoo, Ebay, and MSN, wouldn't the WWW be better
>if it only had Yahoo, Ebay, and MSN? It would be much more "optimized."
This is a terrible example. The internet is a portal to web pages, it is not the webpages itself. Yahoo is a portal by which people connect to webpages. As for Ebay and MSN, if we just had them the internet would be extremely boring. I doubt that they account for the 99.99999999999% webhits that he's talking about. This argument is like saying Microsoft should only offer Windows XP, Microsoft Office, and a file browser (but without the hard disk or the files to browse). Anything else is bloatware. He missed the point. The argument of extra features that are used by 0.1% is the equivalent of a mouse inverter for the desktop, or some other trivial feature that you don't include in the OS, but a rare few might find useful. Removing such features, or making them available for download as extra features, is closer to the argument. I don't enjoy the way he patronises us with this example when it is completely irrelevant.
>The good news is that a lot of stuff I write about UI is starting to have an
>impact on the Gnome and KDE people. There's a lot more appreciation for the
>value of good UI than there used to be in the Linux community. Once every
>open-sourcer has seen their marriage break up by installing Linux on their
>non-technical spouse's computer, they'll finally understand that, no, most
>people don't prefer command lines.
Yeah, that's why we hear so many stories of Grandma's, parent's and wives who have linux installed on their computer and exclaim "This is so much easier to use!". Does he have any evidence of this, or is he just presuming that Linux is hopeless on the desktop? Oh wait, he's talking about the commandline. I guess you'd have to be pretty confident in your Grandparent's computing abilities to install linux without X+KDE/Gnome.
- The program crashing
- Alt-tab simply not working
- Being unable to return to the program
- Finding the program no longe working properly/at all when it switches back
Yep, that sounds very useful doesn't it? Sometimes it works, but in my experience, with the programs I use, it fails often enough to be useless.You say 8 half-working text editors? vi and other console editors are not half-working, and are very useful when you can't afford a remote graphical session, or any other situation where a GUI is not possible or unecessary. As for GUI text editors, gedit, kedit and kwrite all beat notepad hands down. I don't see notepad with features for highlighting based on the language you are saving the text document as. How can you possibly say that notepad beats these common text editors in linux?
You obviously haven't tried linux properly at all. Consider this hypothetical situation - someone is brought up for 20 years using only linux (never heard of windows) in it's current form (KDE 2.2.2, etc). Then they hear about this whizbang operating system called Windows. They decide to give it a whirl as you just did. I'm sure that 15 minutes into the session they would be frustrated when they:
Can you see what is wrong in this example? First of all, this hypothetical person used it for only 15 minutes, not enough time for a full evaluation. Also, this person had grown up using something different, so they favored all the pet features and benefits of their own operating system, while completely missing the good features of the rival operating system. Since they had grown up with this operating system, it's in their mind of how computers should work.
So, until you give it a proper try, it will remain obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.
Why can't Mandrake wait another month for a release so it can include both KDE 3 and GNOME 2? Good thing about having a recent distro for me is it means less software to upgrade after a fresh install, but Mandrake 8.2 looks old before it's even out (Evolution 1.01, Apache 1.3.22, etc). True, a lot of the time it doesn't matter, but the bleeding edge is one reason why I enjoy Mandrake.
Just because there are more racist people in the world than this guy you presume that he is not racist? That's not logical.
>HA - that's funny! At least he doesnt go around
>blowing up innocent people in the name of some
>loser like the titiban (or is that taliho, or
>tali - something)
Are you talking about the Taliban? They don't murder innocent people in the name of the Taliban you twonk. They claim to do it for Allah, which is the arabic translation of the Hebrew word Eli - Elohim, which is who we westerners call God.
>It's one thing to troll on a website - its
>completely different when you losers bomb
>innocent people - THAT is the difference.
That's like a thief saying "I don't have to stop stealing $50 from the local newsagent when there are people stealing millions of dollars from corporations". That's just stupid. They both have to stop. Don't remove his responsibility because of another's actions. He should take responsibility for his own actions.
While he may not bomb innocent people America certainly has had it's fair share of racist killings, and that's the same feelings, the same hatred (in fact it is much less rational than the Taliban/Al-Qaeda's hatred of America).
And don't talk about them as if I am one. Do you have a talent for ignorance that you choose to put people into categories so you don't have to understand them? I don't bomb Americans, nor do I bomb Afghanistan people, nor do I prohibit people from necessary food/medical supplies resulting in needless death.
The world's not as simple as you think. Attitudes shape the world, even if you don't act on them.
You are racist beyond belief, greedy, proud, violent, unconcerned with others outside your nation.
How about you be careful in future of what reputation you build for your nation? Others might not appreciate you building a bad name for them (I presume of course that you are American because you made references to both "nigger" and "arab/muslim").
And if you think America treats women so well, then why when they wear miniskirts, bikini's, playboy, etc, do men look at them as objects to fulfill their lust and not as people? That seems real healthy to me - full of respect.
Pax Americana. There are other cultures and you would do well to try to understand your enemy. As a wise man/God said, "and why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:2).
While I agree it could degenerate into an Islam vs something war, I don't believe the protestant part. Most protestants worldwide are not militant like in Ireland. The title Christianity has under it a very wide variety of beliefs and attitudes, from pacifists to militants, and everything in between. However, from my experience there are not enough militant ones (at least in most western nations) to form any kind of fighting force.
The more likely war seems to be Islam vs Jews, since the name of Islam is symbolic and not literal in the context of a world war(since many of us know Muslims that disagree with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden) and so is the title of Jew. The terrorists in Israel see America and Israel as a Jewish/Zionist group, and that is the symbolic title we are probably heading for.
The cut&paste issue will be completely irrelevant when KDE 3 comes out. I vaguely remember reading that it would come with two options: standard linux cut&paste or windows-like cut and paste. How can you complain against options like that?
Wasn't the response to the American DoJ trial with Microsoft of a similar volume? Around 25,000 responses from a population of 250million. You need to compare it to things like the number of people that want windows machines, and see if the 25,000 exceeds it. Chances are that most of the population doesn't really care too much.
I was pointed to the following article that was a response to this one.
t s# comment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/622816/pos
It points out that this new 'discover' is not all it cracked up to be, which was my initial reaction from reading it.
Two more things please:
1. Don't call evolution or creation 'science 'please. They simply are not. Check out the meaning somewhere.
2. Please try and understand the creation argument BEFORE you start refuting it. I'd bet that most people here posting about the 'lunatic creationists' wouldn't have a clue what their actual arguments are. There are exceptions, so please ignore this if you are one of them.
I wouldn't stake my hopes on those dates either. There are good dating methods that show earth to be younger than 60million years old (unacceptable to macro-evolution), and others that show even younger.
I wouldn't trust the current dating methods for dates we aren't certain of when it doesn't give correct results for dates we do know. One can use these dating methods and receive wildly innacurate results for events we are certain of.
There is a such thing as macroevolution. Just because in the english language we can't differentiate between 'you' singular and 'you' plural does not mean that those two different conditions do not exist. Micro-evolution is the variation in species from already existing genes - micro-evolution is not about mutations. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, rests entirely on mutations, and is unobservable and speculative, and therefore not true science. Just because you don't like to split the two, doesn't mean that the difference is not there.
I'm sure you already understand it, but I'll make it clear anyway. If two parents have the genes for green hair (as a wild example), and these genes are recessive. The two pass on this same gene so the child has green hair. Typically, those who support macroevolution would look at this and say 'See? They've changed, and if it's beneficial then this person will be more likely to survive, and therefore evolution progresses'. This is partially true - natural selection does, by and large, work, just like flipping a coin 10 times gives you roughly 5 heads and 5 tails. The problem is this was dealing with genes already present, so there was no modification, only the passing on of already existing genes. This is micro-evolution - macro-evolution deals with mutations leading to the creation (eventually) of new species.
A creationist argues that genetic mutations are an woefully insufficient explanation for the creation of new species over time, and points out that what is used for evidence of macro-evolution is only actually micro-evolution, which is totally consistent with the creationists model for the world.
I don't pretend to understand this article, because my understanding of creationism and macro-evolution while better than most, is still inadequate.
Still, from what I could gather this still doesn't address some fundamental questions.
This deals with information already present. We are still lacking the fundamental information to make evolution credible - where did these genes that control all others like a master switch come from? This is working with information already present, which a creationist (I presume) would just argue were from the initial creation. Macro-evolution still needs to explain how these creatures came to this state.
Another problem is that when dealing with mutations we don't gain information, we only change.
All this article does is counter a small % of the arguments presented against evolution, while at the same time providing even more evidence of the intricacy and amazing design of the initial creation. This shouldn't, as far as I can tell, be trumpeted as such a breakthrough.
I would love someone to enlighten me if I have missed a major point.
>The only thing I would like to say is that you have presented people with a >challenge to disprove creationsim without any sort of knowledge as to what you >think creationism is.
Two things to say on this:
1. What creationism is was mostly irrelevant for my post. I did touch on it just so that people knew that I had an alternative if macro-evolution was shown false. My argument was basically an attack on evolution rather than a defence of creationism.
2. No-one has had to describe what the theory of evolution is to me, I already knew what it was. It would be nice if people bothered to understand the creationist argument before they decided it was the illogical rant of a few fanatics. Some have said that it is different for each person - this is somewhat true, but is also true for those who argue for macro-evolution.
>You seem to jump topic and switch arguments and viewpoints anytime someone is >anywhere close to disproving it.
I can't remember switching viewpoints anytime. Please point out to me where I did this. As for jumping topics, I can only guess what you mean but I suppose it was a result of me trying to respond to the great variety of responses I received appropriately - as such requiring a jumping of topics as they jumped. In all the responses though I didn't find one that actually understood my challenge (perhaps my fault, or perhaps theirs), instead some off-topic responses of personal problems they had in the way they described it. Kind of like saying "You should have done this sentence on a new line, therefore your argument is wrong". I know this is an extreme example, but it highlights the fact that no-one addressed the problem I presented against evolution.
As for those comments of mine that you think are contradictory, I fail to see the contradictory nature. Have you ever enganged in a philosophical discussion? You probably have without realising it. This discussion right now is philosophical, not scientific. It is a discussion of evidence, logica, rational and clear thinking (or lack of). Just because our definition of science in common culture has become distorted, does not mean that people can claim that something unscientific is irrational. Please try and look up and understand what philosophy and science are, and you will most likely find that my statements were not contradictory.
My views and definitions
-
I must give a little introduction to explain why I say some things and why I think it is reasonable:
My understanding of the world, history, morality, humanity, government, etc, is founded in what is written in the Bible. As one who believes in macro-evolution bases their beliefs on the presumption that macro-evolution must have occurred, and then proceeds to find evidence that supports it, so I do with the Bible. I believe that if what the Bible teaches is true, then we must expect to see certain things. So that is what I will tell you. The argument is whether the available data fits the things that the Bible proclaims, or whether the data contradicts it. I believe that the data fits what the Bible says but contradicts what macro-evolution teaches. This is the essence of the argument.
Now for my definitions and views:
I believe in Elohim, the Creator God, who created us all in His image, who exists in three Persons but one God. This God is omnipresent, so has no location. He is omipotent - all powerful, since through Him everything was created. He is also omniscient, so no secret can be hidden from Him. Our God (since He is the Creator of us all) can do no evil, and will bring all men into judgement before His thrown on the day of judgement. This time is yet to come, but for now men continue as they have, with a few receieving His grace - having all their evil totally forgiven of them.
I believe that the world was created by Him roughly 6000 years ago, with a literal 7 days before it was considered complete. You can find out in Genesis 1 what happened on each of these days.
I believe that on the sixth day land animals and humans were created. Of each animal that it is appropriate (as some have no gender) they were created male and female, one of each. The first man's name was Adam, who's name in the Hebrew sometimes also is interpreted as "Man". His wife was Eve, and they are the parents of all men alive today, our common ancestor.
In the beginning, when the earth was young, Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden and walked with God. They were given rulership over the entire earth - plants, animals, and the soil. This was around 6000 years ago, as I said earlier. At this time when God gave them dominion over everything, He said that they could not eat the fruit from one tree, the fruit of knowledge between good and evil. At some time later (less than 100 years after Adam was created, I think), the serpent came and tempted Eve to eat the fruit. She disobeyed God and ate the fruit. Adam also took and ate the fruit. This serpent was Satan, the great deceiver and father of lies. Before an absurd idea enters your mind that people commonly fall for, this Satan is not the equal opposite of God. Evil is not the opposite of good (consider that right and left are different opposites to hot and cold, since one is to do with symetry, while the other involves the presence or absence of moving molecules). As such, Satan is a created being like us, probably once one of the Angels of God (more on this later). Satan will be judged along with every other wicked creature that has disobeyed God. Satan, even now, is incapable of doing anything unless God first allows him (read the start of Job to understand this more).
Back to the story (as true history and fairy tale are likewise called) of our origins. After this fruit was eaten, Adam & Eve had disobeyed our Creator and as such immediately fell subject to His judgement. He punished them as is described in Genesis 3, near the end. They were cast out of the Garden and forced to work the ground for their food, as we continue to do today. After this, the Bible lists around 10 generations of offspring up until a man named Noah. A conservative estimate of the population of the earth at this time is around 1 billion people, likely to be more. The earth at this time was filled with great evil, men doing horrible things. So God decided to destroy every man, except for Noah and His family, because Noah was a righteous man. So God commanded Noah to build an ark, a giant boat with which to save him and two of every creature (excepting of course the creatures of the sea). Now there have been many arguments that this is impossible, but I have seen most/all of them, and they are all based on assumptions. We don't know exactly how it was done, but suffice to say it was possible - the only argument against it follows this logic - "If we presume , then it would be impossible". So anyway, Noah and His family escaped on this ark while God opened up the fountains of the deep and the waters of heaven, and flooded the entire earth. Some say there is not enough water - this again follows similar logic to above. The earth before the flood was tremendously different to what we say, so it is pointless to argue saying that given today's geography we could not cover the earth. For one no ocean basins would have needed to exist before the flood. If the ocean floors were risen to ground level, imagine how much land would be above water.
Back on track - from this man Noah and his sons came all the humans alive today, along with the animals that were on the ark came the animals alive today. As the population of the earth grew they spread out to cover it. This flood occurred roughly 1632 years after the initial creation. It lasted for a little over a year before the waters receded and Noah and his family could walk on ground again. Once the earth was beginning to get filled again, men were of one language and began to build for themselves a tower to reach into the heavens. God came down and saw what they were doing and said that if we could build this tower then nothing would be kept from us. Therefore He confused our languages so that we could not communicate and finish the tower. He then scattered us across the earth, so that we now find pockets of people with different languages in each part of the world, but we find in some places similarity of design in buildings (such as pyramids), and occasionaly a similarity in history (for most cultures around the world have the story of this flood in their history, and likewise there was a story of God extending the day once so the Israelites could complete a battle, there are stories on opposite side of the world, I have been told, that tell of a night where the darkness was extended). And so man was scattered, waged war, and history progressed. Then a man named Abraham was born, who was also righteous, and God made a promise that from his seed all nations would be blessed. Abraham is the father of our promise in God, that we should be saved from the judgement. This promise was passed on through Abraham to Isaac and then to Jacob, who's name was changed to Israel. The promise passed over Jacob's brother Esau. It is this Israel that the Hebrews today, who call themselves Jews, were born from. They were the children of the promis, a blessing to the nations.
From the very beginning when Adam sinned, through Noah, Abraham, Moses and all the prophets, they all pointed towards the promise of God, a single man, a prophet greater than Moses who would save the world from sin. It is this man that the Jews call the Messiah, who was the man Jesus the Christ, who was also God. He was the hope that all the prophets looked towards, their salvation. This man Jesus was born around the year 0, perhaps 4 AD (I can't really remember). He was born from a virgin so that the prophecy concerning Him could be fulfilled. He grew in wisdom and stature quickly, and in Him was no fault. When His time came He wandered around Israel teaching the Jews inner mysteries, but not all believed, but only those to whom it was given. Then came our moment of redemption - He was betrayed by Judas to the Jews who then demanded He be killed. So Jesus, without fault, was nailed to the Cross as our sacrificial lamb, one who would take our punishment so that we could stand blameless before God on judgement day. Jesus was the reason that the Law was written, and without Him none could hope to possibly escape God's judgement. So now on Pentacost after Jesus death, God sent His Spirit to those who believed that He could live inside them, a seal that we are His and will not be held accountable. As such, we who have been saved love and worship God, and live for nothing but to please Him. So then, although if we were to murder we would be forgiven, it is not in our heart to do so because He works in us to cleanse us from our evil desires - though this work will not be completed until the resurrection.
So now, those who have received the promise wait eagerly for the day of Jesus return when He will bring judgement rather than salvation, and cleanse the earth. At that time men will be afraid and wish to die, but be unable to find death. Those who have been saved eagerly await it because they will finally be freed from their mortal bodies and the evil desires that are with it, and can live and worship our Creator in full. For those who are not sons and daughters of the promise, this day of His return will be full of disaster and upset. It will continue for 7 years at which time Jesus the Christ will set up a kingdom to rule for 1000 years. After this we have not been fully instructed, but presumably it is the time when evil is once and for all removed, and we can live in full with God. For now, the sons and daughters of His promise continue as His servants, seeking to please Him as much as He enables each of us, and teaching others of the things He has commanded us, the greatest of which are:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and
Love your neighbour as yourself (for no man has ever hated himself).
This history was necessary. A creationist is one who has tasted the salvation of God and has the Spirit of God dwelling in him/her, and so cannot deny the God who is their salvation.
Some key factors of this:
* All genetic variety seen today must have existed in the original two created kinds
* The earth must not be older than around 6,000 years. As such, a creationist is led to dispute the dating methods which lead to dates older than this (and with good cause, because in situtations when we know the age these methods report back grossly innacurate dates). There are also some dating methods that contradict what macro-evolution would expect, and some dating methods directly support 6,000 year old earth
* There was a flood around 4000 years ago that covered the earth and wiped out all animals and humans, except for two of each kind.
* There is a God who created all things.
* The human also has a spirit, which animals do not possess. The spirit is immortal but the body is mortal.
* There are demons, spirits that have disobeyed God and seek to deceive men.
* There are angels who are servants of God to do His will. The angels have tremendous power, but again, I say, are servants of God and not deserving of our worship (only God is)
You may find other questions that I neglected to mention. Check out Answers In Genesis or (better in my opinion for more in-depth analysis) Institute for Creation Research, specifically here. Otherwise ask me.
Evolution is not science, creation theory is not science. They are both philosophy. Look up what these are and you will see.
-
I mean, I am an athiest, but I don't see how evolution harms believers, in and of itself!
-
Correction, you are an agnostic. Since you cannot actually disprove God, you merely think that there is no God, but would (if you were honest) accept that there is a God if it could be demonstrated. Evolution, or macro-evolution, if true, would undermine the accuracy of the Bible in historical matters - if it cannot be trusted in historical matters, then we have no certainty that it can be trusted in matters of morality and spirituality.
Also, the Pope does not speak for me any more than a businessman in the heart of India. I am not a Catholic - the Bible speaks for me.
Also, I have seen a multitude of proof to affirm the existence of God (as if such a thing needed proving, with such an abundance of evidence). Christianity is simultaneously the religion most likely to be true, and the easiest to disprove if not true. I would be interested to see how you could attack religion.
The ICR does not violate logic, but it is certainly not scientific. Neither is evolution scientific - please look up what is science somewhere (not a dictionary, it's too brief), and you will see what I mean.
Also, I don't consider a college text a good start for matters of evolution where people's basis for their existence is questioned - bias is inevitable and is present. Much better is to understand the arguments yourself to analyse it.