Do you know what verse in 119 supposedly reads "As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen."? The closest thing I found was verses 89-90:
Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven. Your faithfulness endures to all generations; You established the earth, and it abides.
This verse speaks of God's faithfulness in that the universe continues to exist and function very much in the same way that it was created. For example, it could be said that the reason why we can study science with its reproducable results is because of God's faithfulness in keeping the laws of physics in place. It would take more than a bit of creativity to conclude that nothing has or ever will change in the universe from this verse. Even the Bible contains numerous references to changes in the heavens: the sun standing still for an hour, the new star appearing for Christ's birth. A little meteor hitting the moon would hardly constitute a major religious change.
This sounds like a case where Carl Sagan is sadly misinformed and does not have a good understanding of scripture or Christian doctrine.
That is because that phrase does not actually exist in the original psalm but was added as an addendum by the writer of that prayer book. You can see this in the phrase "Glory be to the Father and to the Son: and to the Holy Spirit" that starts the addition. This phrase would have never have been written in the Old Testament (Hebrew and pre-Christ) book of Psalms.
Re:Foreign Investment Opportunities
on
3D Human Cells Grown
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
America's 20th Century industry was so obsessed with drugs that it's missing the chance to grow into stemcells. Not just from complacency, but from actually outlawing stemcell research. American medical domination of the world can be eclipsed by foreign startups without such handicaps.
No, what was outlawed was the use of embryonic stem cells not stemcells altogether. There are other sources of stemcells than just those from unborn babies. The fear was that by allowing the use of embryonic stem cells to be used is research, we would be justifying abortion and therefore setting a precendent that it is okay to end human life for medical research. To take a completely utilitarian view on this is to challenge our very identity as humans, and I do not fault anyone from examining this issue closely even if it means halting "progress".
This is far from an academic or theological debate. Nearly every civilization that has collapsed throughout history can link its decline to an abandonment of the principles on which it was built. Once you make the choice that there is such a thing as a life not worth living, where do you draw the line? What if we determine that by using one person's stem cells, another person can extend their life by another 100 years? Should we start harvesting the poor to provide those stem cells for the more fortunate? Maybe we just start taking them from people that we don't agree with politically. Since the moral barrier of valuing all human life has already been crossed, what would stop us?
It doesn't sound good to halt progress, but when that progress can lead to a serious degradation of ethics, caution is the far better choice.
Ever since some of us started looking into nature people have said, "you know, that's God's work, you shouldn't really been looking at it."
While there are some who have said this and perhaps this has become a prevailing thought in some circles today, the realm of science used to be filled with Christians with a deep conviction and belief in God. Their thought ran, "This is God's work. We should understand it so that we can better understand and appreciate God." Somewhere along the way it became taboo, but this was more of a social change than a religious one. The Bible never discouraged the study of science, and in fact, many of the old testament writers showed a great deal of knowledge about biology and many species of animals.
If we could rid ourselves of silly arbitrary superstitions great advancements in science will follow.
Agreed. We should rid ourselves of the silly idea that God cannot exist and that everything must be only present within our own three dimensions. I think it would be healthy for the scientific community to have a fair-sized representation of people who believed that God exists just to keep a balanced view. With a one-sided view, new discoveries may be overlooked or missed due to bias.
If you replace the software with guns, you will begin to understand the position of those who want the right to bear arms (modifications have been made).
This is akin to the recent proposal that all gun owners give their guns to law enforcement. The expected eventual end result will be cautious users relinquishing valuable resources with criminals holding the trump card. This too is insane.
Can guns kill people? Sure they can, but so can many other things that the typical person owns (knives, drills, cars). Guns are also tools, and used well they can be of great help. Many families in my area (Montana) rely upon guns for hunting to support their families (cheap meat). Unfortunately, hunting rifles fall into the category of a "sniper rifle" which comes under attack as an unnecessary weapon. And do not underestimate the value of having a weapon for self defense.
Watching a DVD is NOT the same as watching projected film on a screen in a theatre.
No, it is better. I recently purchased a digital projector with component video, invited a bunch of friends over, made some popcorn and grabbed a pop from my fridge, and watched "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" on my 10 ft wide screen in my basement. I got to watch the movie with a crowd of people I knew and liked who didn't talk incessently during the movie. The picture was better than theater quality (no defects in the film), and I was able to control the volume. I was also able to choose the time and date for watching the film. I don't think I will ever go to a movie theater again.
And now with the original Star Wars available... it might just be time for another viewing.:-)
Accomplished entertainment and advertising judges -- including the talents behind Charlie's Angels, American Pie, and Six Feet Under -- had the difficult job of selecting the winners.
Uh... okay. Not exactly the films that I would look for for talent, but...
"Dare Devil" and "This is Hot" are at least done in a professional way, but as I watch some of the other entries, I am blown away that these judges chose the five that they did. What about "Improve", "Sunday Morning", or even "Upgrade"? And those are just the first few I have watched. They look professional (or at least more professional), and they raise awareness. Many of the "winners" seem to be only to promote the feeling that Firefox is a hack browser -- not serious competition in the real world. Firefox needs professional advertising to show that it is "the real deal". I think they need to look for new judges.
What amazes me is that the Great Flood receded so quickly and forcefully that it was able to drive a dinosaur bone over two kilometres into the sea floor. That's divine wrath for ya.
Okay, I'll bite. The problem is that you are not really thinking about the ramifications of a massive world-wide flood. First, there would be tremendous amount of mud and debris swept away by the raging rivers as the world was submerged in several thousand feet of water. Just think about the mudslides we get today with a strong rainstorm and multiply that across the entire planet. A dinosaur living in a low-lying region that died early on in the flood would be buried beneath all of this runoff. The tremendous pressure of the water above it (approaching several miles deep) could have pushed it deeper still. If anything, this could be seen as possible evidence for a world-wide flood. It is certainly just as reasonable of an explanation for the fossils existence there as whatever ideas will come from the evolutionist's camp -- if, of course, you accept the flood as a possibility.
I also have to second the grandparent posts. The problem I have with many scientists today is how they come up with elaborate species, habitats, eating and mating habits, and social structure from a handful of bone fragments that make up 2% of the overall structure. How can they possibly know that those bones do not belong to an already known species of dinosaur? And how can they possibly know anything else about a creature based on so little evidence?
As I said in my post, there are exceptions, and not knowing you or your situation, I cannot possibly answer your question. Your circumstances may be entirely out of your control. My point is a general case for many if not most of the people in the United States who do not need to be enslaved to their jobs but have chosen to be.
With every passing decade, capitalism looks more and more like slavery, and I NEVER thought I would say that.
We are not slaves to capitalism. We are slaves to greed. We are one of the most overworked
nations in the world. It is not so much that our employers or our government are demanding this from us. It is that we demand it from ourselves. We want that new boat. We want that bigger house. We want that bigger/better car -- and it better be new! We want that new entertainment center. We want that new computer/flat panel monitor/video card. We want the lifestyle we see our parents having, but instead of working and saving for it over a lifetime, we want it now. We are so driven by our desire for more stuff that we have become enslaved to it -- even to the point of racking up personal debt we can never hope to pay off. It drives every moment of everyday of our lives.
As we scurry around trying to get more stuff, we are missing the very moments and those important relationships that make life on this planet have any meaning. When was the last time you invited someone over for dinner just to hang out? When was the last time you were invited for dinner? When was the last time you visited your neighbor? When was the last time you actually sat down and did nothing but watch a sunrise? Or looked at the stars?
Purhaps this is the inevitable result of capitalism. It relies upon our own greed to drive us to work and succeed, but it also gives us the freedom to make our lives the way we want to. But when one is given greater freedom, one is given greater responsibility. No one is forcing us to work overtime (you have the freedom to pursue another job/career). No one is forcing us to go into debt so we have to work more(you can always say no to that new luxury). While there are exceptions to this (victims of disasters, diseases, etc.), I think most of us would agree that we have placed a lot of our burdens upon ourselves. We don't really need a newer car. We don't really need a bigger house. We don't really need and 60 inch DLP HDTV flat panel television set. We don't really need a new computer (let's face it, a Pentium III will still run most of today's software and it would be better to spend quality time with family and friends than another few hours playing the latest FPS). We buy these things not because we need them, but because we want them. And we overwork ourselves to get them or to pay off the debt we accrued while buying them.
We are the ones who allowed "the system" to destroy us. We are the ones who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the marketing pitches and hype -- who believed in our hearts that newer is always better. We are the ones who felt that we just had to keep with the Joneses or we would -- what? Have less stuff? We have no one to blame but ourselves.
If by "widespread" they mean one person does it in New York and one person does it in California then I would agree. If they mean "widespread" by increased frequency and occurance then I would not only disagree with them but adamently argue that it's not accepted as a viable method for getting the job done in the software engineering world.
I have to disagree with you as well. I also work for a Fortune 500 company, and we are currently going through the process of moving most of the software engineers to a work-from-home model (hundreds if not thousands of people). It was determined that the cost of maintaining facilities outweighed the downside to development due to less direct communication. Why is this possible? Because technology has gotten to the point where it is increasingly easier to communicate via instant messenger applications, VPN, NetMeeting (yeah, I know, it could stand A LOT of improvements), and even video conferencing. Most of our training is being done on-line, and it is getting much better. A few years ago, setting up a remote office was difficult and expensive, but most of the bugs have been worked out now. The technology is advancing continually making the experience -- nice.
The biggest reason is cost, and it started, I believe, when looking at consulting/contracting work. Given the cost of fly a developer down and pay for their food, housing, and other costs, it became far more advantagious to simply have them work remotely. With VPN technology improving and becoming more stable and reliable, they found that developers could do their work just as well from their office in Denver instead of flying out to New York. In my company, most of the people in my office worked for projects ranging all over the country -- from San Diego to Connecticutt. While there might be groups of three or four on the same project, a lot of people, like myself, were the only ones on a given project from our center. There really wasn't much need for me to be in the office, and my project didn't have the budget to fly me down. As you multiply this scenario across the company, you start to wonder why you even need the office at all.
While I am certain there will be companies that hold out on WFH, there are some very large firms that are embracing it whole-heartedly. Are there drawbacks? Yes, but to many companies, the cost savings make it worth the risk.
No, that is not poverty. A few years ago, my sister moved to Mexico City with her Mexican husband. His family is very poor. He, my sister, and his whole family lived in a small three bedroom house (it became three bedrooms, because he built a make-shift structure on the roof for my sister's room). They had hardly any money, and job that paid very little. They had no TV or air conditioner, and they considered themselves fortunate to have an oven. When talking about lifestyles and cutting back on spending (in my American view), she talked about how they made it (they are doing much better now in Puerto Vallarta). Breakfast, lunch, and dinner consisted of tortillas with eggs... until the end of the week when they could not afford eggs so they just ate tortillas.
The example you raise is very American-centric. There are many people who would be happy to have a job -- any job -- in this world. They would be thrilled to have even one square meal every day -- let alone McDonald's hamburgers with a soda pop. Most Americans do not have to worry about whether their water is sanitary, and even this is related more to environment pollution in specific areas rather than lack of money. The poor here in America also have far more options for employment than most people in the world. You can almost always get a job at McDonald's, if nothing else, and it has options for advancement that can even lead eventually to owning your own store. Compare this to the future offered to the street kids of Bangladesh.
I do not want to be calloused to America's "poor". Even with their relative wealth compared to the rest of the world, it would take sacrifices that I am not sure I could make at this point to live at their standard of living. There is no doubt that their lives can be far more difficult than my own. We should reach out and help the poor in our country when we can. But let us keep it in perspective here. There is a reason why Mexicans are pooring illegally into our country. The poor here are far better off than they are in Mexico, and Mexico is even better off than many other third-world countries.
Nope.:-) I believe the original line was "Faith without works, like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine." Great song. Great lyrics. I really miss his song writing and musicianship. I still listen to his CD's more than any other artist. CCM has not been the same since he passed away.
My dad did a similar thing for me as well. When we got our first computer (also the incredible Commordore 64), my dad decreed that he would not purchase games. If we wanted games, we had to create them ourselves. So I started playing around with programs starting with copying code from computer magazines and moving into creating my own games from scratch. My dad later changed his mind, and bought us some games, but by that time, I was already hooked on programming.
I also remember when Windows 3.0 came out, my dad purchased the early buggy version because he knew that it was going to be big someday, and he was definitely right (Linux/Unix's technical superiority granted, Windows has had a stranglehold on home and business use for the past 10+ years). Looking back, even though he was not himself a programmer my dad was actually pretty savvy when it came to computers -- something that has helped me tremendously in getting a jumpstart on my career.
Too bad it isn't Father's Day. Our dad's are getting quite the endorsement today.;-)
Race is a joke. Woohoo, we all have lighter or darker skin, facial features, maybe some other minor physiological variations like digestive enzymes adapted to local environment. Whatever.
You misunderstand me completely, but I must admit that I was wrong on one point. There are definite races of man based on both genetics and forensic study, but there are five basic races of man, though three are more prominent (what does this mean about my conjecture -- don't know:-) ).
Any further distinction is cultural. If you think we're more different than that, you really need to get out and meet more people. We're all pretty much the same.
Racists piss me off. They are detrimental to our species.
The distinction is far more than cultural. A foresic scientist can determine the ethnicity of an individual from their skeletal structure -- variations in the proportions of the nose, mouth, skull shape, etc. Murder cases have been solved based on this kind of evidence due to the ethnicity of the victim. It is a fact that there are races of man, but that does not mean that any one of these races is inferior or "less human" than any other.
Admitting that there are races does not make one racist. Does saying that there are differences between men and women make me sexists? If you say yes, then you are ignoring reality based on your own emotional preferences. Now, if I were to say that men are better than women or that women are somehow inferior to men, then you can rightfully label me sexist.
In actuality, my beliefs about the origins of man make me absolutely anti-racist. Every human came from the perfect man and woman: Adam and Eve. They were both made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) with the full genetic potential to create all of the wide varieties of people we see today as well as some that may have perished in the flood. Is this a theory? Yes, and I believe it is an interesting one.
You say that everyone is pretty much the same, and I would agree. There are far more similarities than differences (afterall, we are all human!), but there are physiological differences. However, even in my conjecture about Noah's sons, they were all brothers. Any racism that occurs basically boils down to sibling rivalry. I also do not believe that we are evolving and therefore improving in any of the races (which would lead to racism) but rather are exhibiting the variations possible within the genetic make-up of humanity. Some people are taller than others. Does that mean that the taller is any more or less human than the shorter? Certainly not. It just means that we are exhibiting different genes. It is the same with the races. There are differences in appearance and certain genes may be more prominent, but it does not allow for discrimination based on race.
We cannot ignore reality for the sake of politcal correctness, but nor should we abuse reality to demean or discriminate against or for other people. What is needed is a rational understanding of the world we live in, and a deep appreciation for the wonder of who we are as a species. The races of man should not be shunned; that fact should be embraced and enjoyed. I believe it is one of the great wonders of creation -- variety with unity.
Noah had a big ark, and was really thorough. Or there maybe could be something to this new "Theory" of "Evolution". How many more of these discoveries do we need before the fanatics finally give it up?
That is because this is not a proof of macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the idea that a generation of a particular species can create brand new genes that take their offspring in a totally new direction. Micro-evolution is the idea that different species can form from similar genetic ancestors through isolation and selective breeding. Micro-evolution has been observed, is repeatable, and is as close to fact as science can get. Macro-evolution, while theoretically possible, has yet to be observed in nature. The "proof" of this theory lies in fossil records and observed similarities between species, but until it is actually observed in nature, it will be difficult to prove conclusively.
Micro-evolution can create an amazing range of diversity from a single common ancestor. It is important to remember that the identification of species is rather arbitrary. The species is generally defined to be a group of creates that procreates, but it is sometimes difficult to determine when cross-breeding could occur between species. For example, consider all of the wide variety of breeds of dog. We know that they can interbreed, so we call them one species. However, if we had discovered these animals independently around the world, it would be reasonable to assume that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua were different species, though closely related. Until we actually observed the ability to breed between them (is that physically possible?:-) ), we would have no reason to change that hypothesis. Truly the genetic variety that is observed even within a single species is staggering.
On the other hand, there are clear distinctions between families of creatures. A horse will not mate with a dog, for example. In the case of Noah, assuming for a moment that the story is true, it is possible that he collected two of each family of animals, each pair containing the genetic potential of the wide variety of animals we see today. It is interesting to note that the human race has three primary races -- the mongol, the negro, and the anglo -- and Noah is said to have had three sons, each of which could have had their own dominant genes. Considering the diversity we see in humans today (pygmies, midgets, the giants of the NBA, skin tones), how much genetic diversity would have been destroyed if the vast majority of the human race had been killed in a world-wide flood? Is it possible that the pre-historic "species" of man that have been discovered where merely examples of human diversity before the Biblical flood? (And they could have been a lot smarter than we give them credit for... just as prejudice clouds our judgement of those around us today.)
There are fanatics on both sides of this issue -- neither side wants to even consider the possibilities presented by the other. There are lots of questions that have yet to be answered in this world. We know far less than we think we do about life and the world around us. My own view of the origins of life is constantly being challenged and shaped as I read about these kinds of discoveries, and the answers become more amazing and wonderful as time goes on.
Five hundred previously unknown plant species. Wow. Just wow.
Republicans are the only people who use this word, they and newscasters. It's a lovely thing, because they only use it as a term for people who call them liars.
Well, since recent polls have indicated that an overwhelming majority of newscasters claim to be democrats, that shoots your first assertion out of the water. This is of course, well, a lie (by which I suppose you will now call me partisan) since a quick search yielded up an example of democrats calling republicans partisan.
That's why the Democrats are such a mess. They're absolutely everyone else that isn't Bush. They aren't a side, they're the majority of us, the contrarians to Bush's view of reality.
Rubbish and non-sense. I know many who would either identify themselves as republicans or conservatives to DO NOT like Bush. While I agree with some of his moral stances (in regard to pro-life, pro-family, etc.), I do not agree with many of his policies from increased spending to an erosion of personal rights in the PATRIOT Act. Does this mean I am a Democrat? Absolutely not! I believe in a small federal government, the right of the unborn, and responsibility for our own actions -- all things that seem to be opposed by your "majority" party. There are millions of people in this country who disagree with Bush and the Democratic party. Anyone who follows anyone blindly is following a dangerous path -- you will never know where you will be led.
Bush and his co-thinkers have been wrong on the environment, tax cuts, terrorism, civil rights, causus belli, voting machines, the Swift Boat and Murtha smears, privacy, education, regulation, (repeat ad-nauseum)
Do you care to defend each and every one of these accusations? While many of your listed items may have valid arguments, I think it is safe to say that you snuck in more than a few issues that you cannot irrefutably defend. For just one example, tax cuts have given our economy the boost it needed to get back up and running again, and tax revenues are now actually higher than when Bush took office. For decades, fiscal conservatives and economists have shown that tax cuts actually help the economy since allowing individuals to invest in the economy is much more effecient than increasing government spending. Why again was Bush wrong on tax cuts? (Yes, this is a debatable opinion, but that is precisely my point!)
This post shows the very same single-minded, "borderline psychopathic" traits that you put on Bush -- if you are with him on anything (or is that, you are not in agreement with Catbeller?), you are evil. I will not and cannot defend all of the presidents actions, but just because Bush did it does not mean that the action is inherently evil or wrong. He, just like everyone else, is human. We all do some things that are good, we all do some things poorly, and we all do things that are deceitful and wrong (sadly, usually more of the latter). The first step to understanding and living with each other is to recognize this fact.
They are? When? Where? Any decent scientific education always shows that scientific view change. I would be interested to see a report of any school scientific teaching that states that any current theory is unquestionable dogma.
I remember in a junior high science class being asked the following true/false question: Did birds evolve from reptiles? This was a straight forward, black-and-white question that left no room for doubt whatsoever, and it was indicative of the public education I received. When I questioned the teacher about this question, her response was basically "it has been conclusively proven". End of discussion. While it is true that in many (most?) university-level courses the problems/mysteries in current scientific theory are discussed, you will find very little of that in elementary, junior high, or even high school curriculum. (Of course, one could ask whether any science taught in American public schools is "decent".);-)
No. Educators assume that students who question scientific belief on religious grounds are unlikely to become scientists. They are right.
Not true at all. I know several people who have gone into the realm of science precisely because of their religious convictions. They believe that the Bible brings up interesting possibilities for solutions to some of the problems mentioned in the linked article. One man I know believes the the rapid expansion of the universe is indicated by the phrase "God stretched out the heavens(spaces) and established the earth(matter)". He believes that the Big Bang did happen much like scientists do today, but that it was part of the creation process. Whether or not you agree with him, it was his religious convictions that have him now performing experiments on the speed of light, and developing new theories in physics. (I wish I had a link to his research and theories, but all that is available online is a placeholder site. Hopefully I can talk him into putting up more information on that site.)
Besides, everyone is "religious". What is religion but the basis upon which you build your world view? Most evolutionists are humanists or athiests. There is no God, therefore everything must be explained by measurable, reproducable evidence -- therefore evolution. This is just as much a religion as anything else. Whether it is a more or less viable religion than another is a different question entirely, but we should not use someone's religion to ignore valid, scientific evidence that they may present. Just as creationists should keep an open mind about evidence (I love to read about new scientific discoveries even if they seem to contradict the Bible), evolutionists shouldn't take such a hard-line, egotistical view of their "religious" counterparts in their fields.
Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries in a field where none belong.
And we wonder why kids don't want to go into the sciences: there are not (or can be no) mysteries. Why go into a field where everything is already solved, packaged, and delivered? This is the biggest complaint I have about the way science is taught today. Science is shown to have solved all of the mysteries. Evolution is an indisputable fact, and it happened exactly such-and-such a way. There is no room for doubt (you can't disagree with the churc... I mean the scientists!). We have effectively removed the mystery of life, and leaving us to just eek out an existence.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of mysteries throughout the realm of science. In fact, one could say that science is the solving of mysteries. Personnally, I wouldn't want to live in a universe where every mystery has already been solved. Fortunately, that is certainly not the case. Science has made huge gains in the past 100 years, but we have much, much farther to go. Revel in this mystery, and watch with interest as the answers come forth.
Seriously, it's right before Christmas, as the article points out. Nobody's going nuts buying music because they're spending all their money on presents and other holiday [stuff]
You hit an important point here. Music sales are down (slightly) this quarter, but what will happen in the next quarter? I can see a lot of iPods being purchased for Christmas presents for kids, friends, etc. Most parents probably don't know what songs to buy for their kids, so why not wait until they get the gift, go on-line with them, and order songs from iTunes (and others). As you pointed out, people are spending money on other things, but when all of these new gifts arrive, people are going to be looking for music to fill them with.
If first quarter 2006 comes and goes with a decline in music downloads, then they can talk. I predict (no, I am not a prophet so don't stone me if I am wrong!) that the music industry will find their "big" quarter has moved from the historical norm -- not pre-Christmas but post.
Maybe we just don't see anything just or right about sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty.
But if the Innocent was not killed for us, then we would all be without hope. This is the picture that the Bible paints. All people are sinners. We have all hated, cheated, lied, stole, and generally misbehaved. An honest look at our world shows that we humans are generally rather nasty, selfish creatures. The Bible says that we were all hopelessly lost, but God loved us so much that He was willing to send His only Son to demonstrate how we ought to live, then to suffer torture and the most painful death imaginable to pay for the guilt that we all have -- a guilt that requires payment (the "deep magic" of the Narnia world). This was a once-for-all sacrifice that need never be repeated because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice -- God and man who was perfect and blameless. And through His resurrection, this was not just an empty sacrifice but a spectacular defeat of evil as Jesus has conquered both sin and death.
Christianity is not about "sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty". It is about celebrating the gift that God gave us nearly two thousand years ago in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is about the hope that we have been given a way to abandon the evil human nature of rebellion and hate and to learn to love and forgive each other. It is the promise that if we accept this gift from God that our debt has been paid, and we can spend eternity with God.
That is the Christian world view. A free gift has been offered to people who desparately need it -- what is so inherently evil about that?
- Why is the witch so angry?
- Where did Aslan come back from?
- What connection does the professor have to the wardrobe and Narnia?
- How did Narnia come into the hands of the White Witch?
- Where did Aslan leave to and why?
- How did Aslan become king?
What you are looking for is "The Magician's Nephew", the sixth book in the Narnian series that is actually a prequel to the entire series. It explains where the witch came from, what the professor knows about Narnia, and who Aslan is (as well as what is up with the lightpost:-) ). These questions were all mysteries in the original books (in their original order) that were not answered until the second to the last book, and with the possibility of making all seven books into movies, they must have decided to keep them mysteries now as well.
Okay, I bit. I checked out the links that you provided, and quite frankly, I was disappointed with the quality of the criticisms. A vast majority of the issues raised are either a distrust of anything regarding faith or a misunderstanding of poetry, language, and metaphore.To address each issue would take far too long (I don't have a couple months to look into every item and refute them). If you will allow that miracles can happen, almost half of the complaints are moot. The Bible is a book about faith, is it not?
Next, the author shows a complete misunderstanding of language and poetic structure. I can say that my love is as deep as the ocean... that doesn't meant that it is 45,000 feet deep, it means that it is very strong. When the Bible says that the earth shall not be moved, it is referring to the stability of the planet which relative to everything in our realm of existence, is very solid. Yes, the earth does move in space, but for the sake of poetry and in every day practical life, it does not. We often generalize when describing something by comparing it to something else (your eyes are as blue as the sky).
If a list of this calibre was created refuting evolution, it would be dismissed without a second thought -- why waste time on it? It is nit-picky at best; ignorant at worst.
...the intellisense in Visual Studio "corrected" the "mistaken" alterations.
When I first started using C# and.NET, I was very impressed with the framework that Microsoft came up with. But then I noticed a major annoyance: they made changes to my nicely formatted HTML code on the aspx pages. Becoming frustrated, I searched the option menus and was excited to see they had a flag to turn that option off... but it didn't work. Well, now they just released VS 2005, and now the HTML is left alone. BUT, now it makes changes to my C# code!?! It may be anal, but I like to line up my equal signs in a long series of assignments as well as the variable names when defining them. I find it makes it easier to read, but Microsoft in their <sarcasm>infinite wisdom</sarcasm> has determined that they alone know what good code looks like.
When will Microsoft learn that they DON'T know the best way to do things, and to let the customers think for themselves. Microsoft has grown so big that their growing similarity list to the US government is almost complete (we can spend your money better than you can). I am inching ever closer to abandoning Microsoft for good (Java for development, Macintosh for my home computer). Sometimes I wonder what I am waiting for.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what verse in 119 supposedly reads "As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen."? The closest thing I found was verses 89-90:
This verse speaks of God's faithfulness in that the universe continues to exist and function very much in the same way that it was created. For example, it could be said that the reason why we can study science with its reproducable results is because of God's faithfulness in keeping the laws of physics in place. It would take more than a bit of creativity to conclude that nothing has or ever will change in the universe from this verse. Even the Bible contains numerous references to changes in the heavens: the sun standing still for an hour, the new star appearing for Christ's birth. A little meteor hitting the moon would hardly constitute a major religious change.
This sounds like a case where Carl Sagan is sadly misinformed and does not have a good understanding of scripture or Christian doctrine.
That is because that phrase does not actually exist in the original psalm but was added as an addendum by the writer of that prayer book. You can see this in the phrase "Glory be to the Father and to the Son: and to the Holy Spirit" that starts the addition. This phrase would have never have been written in the Old Testament (Hebrew and pre-Christ) book of Psalms.
No, what was outlawed was the use of embryonic stem cells not stemcells altogether. There are other sources of stemcells than just those from unborn babies. The fear was that by allowing the use of embryonic stem cells to be used is research, we would be justifying abortion and therefore setting a precendent that it is okay to end human life for medical research. To take a completely utilitarian view on this is to challenge our very identity as humans, and I do not fault anyone from examining this issue closely even if it means halting "progress".
This is far from an academic or theological debate. Nearly every civilization that has collapsed throughout history can link its decline to an abandonment of the principles on which it was built. Once you make the choice that there is such a thing as a life not worth living, where do you draw the line? What if we determine that by using one person's stem cells, another person can extend their life by another 100 years? Should we start harvesting the poor to provide those stem cells for the more fortunate? Maybe we just start taking them from people that we don't agree with politically. Since the moral barrier of valuing all human life has already been crossed, what would stop us?
It doesn't sound good to halt progress, but when that progress can lead to a serious degradation of ethics, caution is the far better choice.
While there are some who have said this and perhaps this has become a prevailing thought in some circles today, the realm of science used to be filled with Christians with a deep conviction and belief in God. Their thought ran, "This is God's work. We should understand it so that we can better understand and appreciate God." Somewhere along the way it became taboo, but this was more of a social change than a religious one. The Bible never discouraged the study of science, and in fact, many of the old testament writers showed a great deal of knowledge about biology and many species of animals.
Agreed. We should rid ourselves of the silly idea that God cannot exist and that everything must be only present within our own three dimensions. I think it would be healthy for the scientific community to have a fair-sized representation of people who believed that God exists just to keep a balanced view. With a one-sided view, new discoveries may be overlooked or missed due to bias.
If you replace the software with guns, you will begin to understand the position of those who want the right to bear arms (modifications have been made).
Can guns kill people? Sure they can, but so can many other things that the typical person owns (knives, drills, cars). Guns are also tools, and used well they can be of great help. Many families in my area (Montana) rely upon guns for hunting to support their families (cheap meat). Unfortunately, hunting rifles fall into the category of a "sniper rifle" which comes under attack as an unnecessary weapon. And do not underestimate the value of having a weapon for self defense.
No, it is better. I recently purchased a digital projector with component video, invited a bunch of friends over, made some popcorn and grabbed a pop from my fridge, and watched "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" on my 10 ft wide screen in my basement. I got to watch the movie with a crowd of people I knew and liked who didn't talk incessently during the movie. The picture was better than theater quality (no defects in the film), and I was able to control the volume. I was also able to choose the time and date for watching the film. I don't think I will ever go to a movie theater again.
And now with the original Star Wars available... it might just be time for another viewing. :-)
From the article:
Uh... okay. Not exactly the films that I would look for for talent, but...
"Dare Devil" and "This is Hot" are at least done in a professional way, but as I watch some of the other entries, I am blown away that these judges chose the five that they did. What about "Improve", "Sunday Morning", or even "Upgrade"? And those are just the first few I have watched. They look professional (or at least more professional), and they raise awareness. Many of the "winners" seem to be only to promote the feeling that Firefox is a hack browser -- not serious competition in the real world. Firefox needs professional advertising to show that it is "the real deal". I think they need to look for new judges.
Okay, I'll bite. The problem is that you are not really thinking about the ramifications of a massive world-wide flood. First, there would be tremendous amount of mud and debris swept away by the raging rivers as the world was submerged in several thousand feet of water. Just think about the mudslides we get today with a strong rainstorm and multiply that across the entire planet. A dinosaur living in a low-lying region that died early on in the flood would be buried beneath all of this runoff. The tremendous pressure of the water above it (approaching several miles deep) could have pushed it deeper still. If anything, this could be seen as possible evidence for a world-wide flood. It is certainly just as reasonable of an explanation for the fossils existence there as whatever ideas will come from the evolutionist's camp -- if, of course, you accept the flood as a possibility.
I also have to second the grandparent posts. The problem I have with many scientists today is how they come up with elaborate species, habitats, eating and mating habits, and social structure from a handful of bone fragments that make up 2% of the overall structure. How can they possibly know that those bones do not belong to an already known species of dinosaur? And how can they possibly know anything else about a creature based on so little evidence?
As I said in my post, there are exceptions, and not knowing you or your situation, I cannot possibly answer your question. Your circumstances may be entirely out of your control. My point is a general case for many if not most of the people in the United States who do not need to be enslaved to their jobs but have chosen to be.
We are not slaves to capitalism. We are slaves to greed. We are one of the most overworked nations in the world. It is not so much that our employers or our government are demanding this from us. It is that we demand it from ourselves. We want that new boat. We want that bigger house. We want that bigger/better car -- and it better be new! We want that new entertainment center. We want that new computer/flat panel monitor/video card. We want the lifestyle we see our parents having, but instead of working and saving for it over a lifetime, we want it now. We are so driven by our desire for more stuff that we have become enslaved to it -- even to the point of racking up personal debt we can never hope to pay off. It drives every moment of everyday of our lives.
As we scurry around trying to get more stuff, we are missing the very moments and those important relationships that make life on this planet have any meaning. When was the last time you invited someone over for dinner just to hang out? When was the last time you were invited for dinner? When was the last time you visited your neighbor? When was the last time you actually sat down and did nothing but watch a sunrise? Or looked at the stars?
Purhaps this is the inevitable result of capitalism. It relies upon our own greed to drive us to work and succeed, but it also gives us the freedom to make our lives the way we want to. But when one is given greater freedom, one is given greater responsibility. No one is forcing us to work overtime (you have the freedom to pursue another job/career). No one is forcing us to go into debt so we have to work more(you can always say no to that new luxury). While there are exceptions to this (victims of disasters, diseases, etc.), I think most of us would agree that we have placed a lot of our burdens upon ourselves. We don't really need a newer car. We don't really need a bigger house. We don't really need and 60 inch DLP HDTV flat panel television set. We don't really need a new computer (let's face it, a Pentium III will still run most of today's software and it would be better to spend quality time with family and friends than another few hours playing the latest FPS). We buy these things not because we need them, but because we want them. And we overwork ourselves to get them or to pay off the debt we accrued while buying them.
We are the ones who allowed "the system" to destroy us. We are the ones who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the marketing pitches and hype -- who believed in our hearts that newer is always better. We are the ones who felt that we just had to keep with the Joneses or we would -- what? Have less stuff? We have no one to blame but ourselves.
I have to disagree with you as well. I also work for a Fortune 500 company, and we are currently going through the process of moving most of the software engineers to a work-from-home model (hundreds if not thousands of people). It was determined that the cost of maintaining facilities outweighed the downside to development due to less direct communication. Why is this possible? Because technology has gotten to the point where it is increasingly easier to communicate via instant messenger applications, VPN, NetMeeting (yeah, I know, it could stand A LOT of improvements), and even video conferencing. Most of our training is being done on-line, and it is getting much better. A few years ago, setting up a remote office was difficult and expensive, but most of the bugs have been worked out now. The technology is advancing continually making the experience -- nice.
The biggest reason is cost, and it started, I believe, when looking at consulting/contracting work. Given the cost of fly a developer down and pay for their food, housing, and other costs, it became far more advantagious to simply have them work remotely. With VPN technology improving and becoming more stable and reliable, they found that developers could do their work just as well from their office in Denver instead of flying out to New York. In my company, most of the people in my office worked for projects ranging all over the country -- from San Diego to Connecticutt. While there might be groups of three or four on the same project, a lot of people, like myself, were the only ones on a given project from our center. There really wasn't much need for me to be in the office, and my project didn't have the budget to fly me down. As you multiply this scenario across the company, you start to wonder why you even need the office at all.
While I am certain there will be companies that hold out on WFH, there are some very large firms that are embracing it whole-heartedly. Are there drawbacks? Yes, but to many companies, the cost savings make it worth the risk.
No, that is not poverty. A few years ago, my sister moved to Mexico City with her Mexican husband. His family is very poor. He, my sister, and his whole family lived in a small three bedroom house (it became three bedrooms, because he built a make-shift structure on the roof for my sister's room). They had hardly any money, and job that paid very little. They had no TV or air conditioner, and they considered themselves fortunate to have an oven. When talking about lifestyles and cutting back on spending (in my American view), she talked about how they made it (they are doing much better now in Puerto Vallarta). Breakfast, lunch, and dinner consisted of tortillas with eggs... until the end of the week when they could not afford eggs so they just ate tortillas.
The example you raise is very American-centric. There are many people who would be happy to have a job -- any job -- in this world. They would be thrilled to have even one square meal every day -- let alone McDonald's hamburgers with a soda pop. Most Americans do not have to worry about whether their water is sanitary, and even this is related more to environment pollution in specific areas rather than lack of money. The poor here in America also have far more options for employment than most people in the world. You can almost always get a job at McDonald's, if nothing else, and it has options for advancement that can even lead eventually to owning your own store. Compare this to the future offered to the street kids of Bangladesh.
I do not want to be calloused to America's "poor". Even with their relative wealth compared to the rest of the world, it would take sacrifices that I am not sure I could make at this point to live at their standard of living. There is no doubt that their lives can be far more difficult than my own. We should reach out and help the poor in our country when we can. But let us keep it in perspective here. There is a reason why Mexicans are pooring illegally into our country. The poor here are far better off than they are in Mexico, and Mexico is even better off than many other third-world countries.
Nope. :-) I believe the original line was "Faith without works, like a song you can't sing, it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine." Great song. Great lyrics. I really miss his song writing and musicianship. I still listen to his CD's more than any other artist. CCM has not been the same since he passed away.
My dad did a similar thing for me as well. When we got our first computer (also the incredible Commordore 64), my dad decreed that he would not purchase games. If we wanted games, we had to create them ourselves. So I started playing around with programs starting with copying code from computer magazines and moving into creating my own games from scratch. My dad later changed his mind, and bought us some games, but by that time, I was already hooked on programming.
I also remember when Windows 3.0 came out, my dad purchased the early buggy version because he knew that it was going to be big someday, and he was definitely right (Linux/Unix's technical superiority granted, Windows has had a stranglehold on home and business use for the past 10+ years). Looking back, even though he was not himself a programmer my dad was actually pretty savvy when it came to computers -- something that has helped me tremendously in getting a jumpstart on my career.
Too bad it isn't Father's Day. Our dad's are getting quite the endorsement today. ;-)
You misunderstand me completely, but I must admit that I was wrong on one point. There are definite races of man based on both genetics and forensic study, but there are five basic races of man, though three are more prominent (what does this mean about my conjecture -- don't know :-) ).
The distinction is far more than cultural. A foresic scientist can determine the ethnicity of an individual from their skeletal structure -- variations in the proportions of the nose, mouth, skull shape, etc. Murder cases have been solved based on this kind of evidence due to the ethnicity of the victim. It is a fact that there are races of man, but that does not mean that any one of these races is inferior or "less human" than any other.
Admitting that there are races does not make one racist. Does saying that there are differences between men and women make me sexists? If you say yes, then you are ignoring reality based on your own emotional preferences. Now, if I were to say that men are better than women or that women are somehow inferior to men, then you can rightfully label me sexist.
In actuality, my beliefs about the origins of man make me absolutely anti-racist. Every human came from the perfect man and woman: Adam and Eve. They were both made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) with the full genetic potential to create all of the wide varieties of people we see today as well as some that may have perished in the flood. Is this a theory? Yes, and I believe it is an interesting one.
You say that everyone is pretty much the same, and I would agree. There are far more similarities than differences (afterall, we are all human!), but there are physiological differences. However, even in my conjecture about Noah's sons, they were all brothers. Any racism that occurs basically boils down to sibling rivalry. I also do not believe that we are evolving and therefore improving in any of the races (which would lead to racism) but rather are exhibiting the variations possible within the genetic make-up of humanity. Some people are taller than others. Does that mean that the taller is any more or less human than the shorter? Certainly not. It just means that we are exhibiting different genes. It is the same with the races. There are differences in appearance and certain genes may be more prominent, but it does not allow for discrimination based on race.
We cannot ignore reality for the sake of politcal correctness, but nor should we abuse reality to demean or discriminate against or for other people. What is needed is a rational understanding of the world we live in, and a deep appreciation for the wonder of who we are as a species. The races of man should not be shunned; that fact should be embraced and enjoyed. I believe it is one of the great wonders of creation -- variety with unity.
That is because this is not a proof of macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the idea that a generation of a particular species can create brand new genes that take their offspring in a totally new direction. Micro-evolution is the idea that different species can form from similar genetic ancestors through isolation and selective breeding. Micro-evolution has been observed, is repeatable, and is as close to fact as science can get. Macro-evolution, while theoretically possible, has yet to be observed in nature. The "proof" of this theory lies in fossil records and observed similarities between species, but until it is actually observed in nature, it will be difficult to prove conclusively.
Micro-evolution can create an amazing range of diversity from a single common ancestor. It is important to remember that the identification of species is rather arbitrary. The species is generally defined to be a group of creates that procreates, but it is sometimes difficult to determine when cross-breeding could occur between species. For example, consider all of the wide variety of breeds of dog. We know that they can interbreed, so we call them one species. However, if we had discovered these animals independently around the world, it would be reasonable to assume that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua were different species, though closely related. Until we actually observed the ability to breed between them (is that physically possible? :-) ), we would have no reason to change that hypothesis. Truly the genetic variety that is observed even within a single species is staggering.
On the other hand, there are clear distinctions between families of creatures. A horse will not mate with a dog, for example. In the case of Noah, assuming for a moment that the story is true, it is possible that he collected two of each family of animals, each pair containing the genetic potential of the wide variety of animals we see today. It is interesting to note that the human race has three primary races -- the mongol, the negro, and the anglo -- and Noah is said to have had three sons, each of which could have had their own dominant genes. Considering the diversity we see in humans today (pygmies, midgets, the giants of the NBA, skin tones), how much genetic diversity would have been destroyed if the vast majority of the human race had been killed in a world-wide flood? Is it possible that the pre-historic "species" of man that have been discovered where merely examples of human diversity before the Biblical flood? (And they could have been a lot smarter than we give them credit for... just as prejudice clouds our judgement of those around us today.)
There are fanatics on both sides of this issue -- neither side wants to even consider the possibilities presented by the other. There are lots of questions that have yet to be answered in this world. We know far less than we think we do about life and the world around us. My own view of the origins of life is constantly being challenged and shaped as I read about these kinds of discoveries, and the answers become more amazing and wonderful as time goes on.
Amen. :-)
And you got a flamebait for agreeing with me (with a fairly insightful comment of your own). :-) Ah, Slashdot.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I call troll.
Well, since recent polls have indicated that an overwhelming majority of newscasters claim to be democrats, that shoots your first assertion out of the water. This is of course, well, a lie (by which I suppose you will now call me partisan) since a quick search yielded up an example of democrats calling republicans partisan.
Rubbish and non-sense. I know many who would either identify themselves as republicans or conservatives to DO NOT like Bush. While I agree with some of his moral stances (in regard to pro-life, pro-family, etc.), I do not agree with many of his policies from increased spending to an erosion of personal rights in the PATRIOT Act. Does this mean I am a Democrat? Absolutely not! I believe in a small federal government, the right of the unborn, and responsibility for our own actions -- all things that seem to be opposed by your "majority" party. There are millions of people in this country who disagree with Bush and the Democratic party. Anyone who follows anyone blindly is following a dangerous path -- you will never know where you will be led.
Do you care to defend each and every one of these accusations? While many of your listed items may have valid arguments, I think it is safe to say that you snuck in more than a few issues that you cannot irrefutably defend. For just one example, tax cuts have given our economy the boost it needed to get back up and running again, and tax revenues are now actually higher than when Bush took office. For decades, fiscal conservatives and economists have shown that tax cuts actually help the economy since allowing individuals to invest in the economy is much more effecient than increasing government spending. Why again was Bush wrong on tax cuts? (Yes, this is a debatable opinion, but that is precisely my point!)
This post shows the very same single-minded, "borderline psychopathic" traits that you put on Bush -- if you are with him on anything (or is that, you are not in agreement with Catbeller?), you are evil. I will not and cannot defend all of the presidents actions, but just because Bush did it does not mean that the action is inherently evil or wrong. He, just like everyone else, is human. We all do some things that are good, we all do some things poorly, and we all do things that are deceitful and wrong (sadly, usually more of the latter). The first step to understanding and living with each other is to recognize this fact.
I remember in a junior high science class being asked the following true/false question: Did birds evolve from reptiles? This was a straight forward, black-and-white question that left no room for doubt whatsoever, and it was indicative of the public education I received. When I questioned the teacher about this question, her response was basically "it has been conclusively proven". End of discussion. While it is true that in many (most?) university-level courses the problems/mysteries in current scientific theory are discussed, you will find very little of that in elementary, junior high, or even high school curriculum. (Of course, one could ask whether any science taught in American public schools is "decent".) ;-)
Not true at all. I know several people who have gone into the realm of science precisely because of their religious convictions. They believe that the Bible brings up interesting possibilities for solutions to some of the problems mentioned in the linked article. One man I know believes the the rapid expansion of the universe is indicated by the phrase "God stretched out the heavens(spaces) and established the earth(matter)". He believes that the Big Bang did happen much like scientists do today, but that it was part of the creation process. Whether or not you agree with him, it was his religious convictions that have him now performing experiments on the speed of light, and developing new theories in physics. (I wish I had a link to his research and theories, but all that is available online is a placeholder site. Hopefully I can talk him into putting up more information on that site.)
Besides, everyone is "religious". What is religion but the basis upon which you build your world view? Most evolutionists are humanists or athiests. There is no God, therefore everything must be explained by measurable, reproducable evidence -- therefore evolution. This is just as much a religion as anything else. Whether it is a more or less viable religion than another is a different question entirely, but we should not use someone's religion to ignore valid, scientific evidence that they may present. Just as creationists should keep an open mind about evidence (I love to read about new scientific discoveries even if they seem to contradict the Bible), evolutionists shouldn't take such a hard-line, egotistical view of their "religious" counterparts in their fields.
And we wonder why kids don't want to go into the sciences: there are not (or can be no) mysteries. Why go into a field where everything is already solved, packaged, and delivered? This is the biggest complaint I have about the way science is taught today. Science is shown to have solved all of the mysteries. Evolution is an indisputable fact, and it happened exactly such-and-such a way. There is no room for doubt (you can't disagree with the churc... I mean the scientists!). We have effectively removed the mystery of life, and leaving us to just eek out an existence.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of mysteries throughout the realm of science. In fact, one could say that science is the solving of mysteries. Personnally, I wouldn't want to live in a universe where every mystery has already been solved. Fortunately, that is certainly not the case. Science has made huge gains in the past 100 years, but we have much, much farther to go. Revel in this mystery, and watch with interest as the answers come forth.
You hit an important point here. Music sales are down (slightly) this quarter, but what will happen in the next quarter? I can see a lot of iPods being purchased for Christmas presents for kids, friends, etc. Most parents probably don't know what songs to buy for their kids, so why not wait until they get the gift, go on-line with them, and order songs from iTunes (and others). As you pointed out, people are spending money on other things, but when all of these new gifts arrive, people are going to be looking for music to fill them with.
If first quarter 2006 comes and goes with a decline in music downloads, then they can talk. I predict (no, I am not a prophet so don't stone me if I am wrong!) that the music industry will find their "big" quarter has moved from the historical norm -- not pre-Christmas but post.
But if the Innocent was not killed for us, then we would all be without hope. This is the picture that the Bible paints. All people are sinners. We have all hated, cheated, lied, stole, and generally misbehaved. An honest look at our world shows that we humans are generally rather nasty, selfish creatures. The Bible says that we were all hopelessly lost, but God loved us so much that He was willing to send His only Son to demonstrate how we ought to live, then to suffer torture and the most painful death imaginable to pay for the guilt that we all have -- a guilt that requires payment (the "deep magic" of the Narnia world). This was a once-for-all sacrifice that need never be repeated because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice -- God and man who was perfect and blameless. And through His resurrection, this was not just an empty sacrifice but a spectacular defeat of evil as Jesus has conquered both sin and death.
Christianity is not about "sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty". It is about celebrating the gift that God gave us nearly two thousand years ago in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is about the hope that we have been given a way to abandon the evil human nature of rebellion and hate and to learn to love and forgive each other. It is the promise that if we accept this gift from God that our debt has been paid, and we can spend eternity with God.
That is the Christian world view. A free gift has been offered to people who desparately need it -- what is so inherently evil about that?
What you are looking for is "The Magician's Nephew", the sixth book in the Narnian series that is actually a prequel to the entire series. It explains where the witch came from, what the professor knows about Narnia, and who Aslan is (as well as what is up with the lightpost :-) ). These questions were all mysteries in the original books (in their original order) that were not answered until the second to the last book, and with the possibility of making all seven books into movies, they must have decided to keep them mysteries now as well.
Okay, I bit. I checked out the links that you provided, and quite frankly, I was disappointed with the quality of the criticisms. A vast majority of the issues raised are either a distrust of anything regarding faith or a misunderstanding of poetry, language, and metaphore.To address each issue would take far too long (I don't have a couple months to look into every item and refute them). If you will allow that miracles can happen, almost half of the complaints are moot. The Bible is a book about faith, is it not?
Next, the author shows a complete misunderstanding of language and poetic structure. I can say that my love is as deep as the ocean... that doesn't meant that it is 45,000 feet deep, it means that it is very strong. When the Bible says that the earth shall not be moved, it is referring to the stability of the planet which relative to everything in our realm of existence, is very solid. Yes, the earth does move in space, but for the sake of poetry and in every day practical life, it does not. We often generalize when describing something by comparing it to something else (your eyes are as blue as the sky).
If a list of this calibre was created refuting evolution, it would be dismissed without a second thought -- why waste time on it? It is nit-picky at best; ignorant at worst.
When I first started using C# and .NET, I was very impressed with the framework that Microsoft came up with. But then I noticed a major annoyance: they made changes to my nicely formatted HTML code on the aspx pages. Becoming frustrated, I searched the option menus and was excited to see they had a flag to turn that option off... but it didn't work. Well, now they just released VS 2005, and now the HTML is left alone. BUT, now it makes changes to my C# code!?! It may be anal, but I like to line up my equal signs in a long series of assignments as well as the variable names when defining them. I find it makes it easier to read, but Microsoft in their <sarcasm>infinite wisdom</sarcasm> has determined that they alone know what good code looks like.
When will Microsoft learn that they DON'T know the best way to do things, and to let the customers think for themselves. Microsoft has grown so big that their growing similarity list to the US government is almost complete (we can spend your money better than you can). I am inching ever closer to abandoning Microsoft for good (Java for development, Macintosh for my home computer). Sometimes I wonder what I am waiting for.