FYI/ Nokia's new 770 Tablet - Debian Linux, X, Gnome, Opera, 802.11g, Bluetooth 1.2, 800x400 widescreen, handheld form factor - supposed to go on sale for US$ 350 within 4 months. (No phone included.)
Nokia's site for open-source components for the 770: Maemo.org has Linux sources and application development resources.
Your parent poster is right. Linux is a Unix clone, as per the general meaning of that word in computing.
> Unless you mean something different by "clone" than the rest of the world. Most people are comfortable using the word "clone" to describe 'work alikes', and not just systems that share source code.
- You can see this if you google for "Linus Unix clone".
- Andrew Tanenbaum calls Minix "a minimal UNIX clone", (though he didn't use any AT&T UNIX source)
- Linus' initial usenet posting called Linux "a minix-lookalike". At the time, Linux was quite depedant on Minix, needing Minix sources to compile (though no Minix source was used in Linux).
- Linux was also a Minix (and hence a Unix) 'work alike'. In the same post, Linus expressed interest in reusing existing code written for Minix, for Linux: I'm also interested in hearing from anybody who has written any of the utilities/library functions for minix. If your efforts are freely distributable (under copyright or even public domain), I'd like to hear from you, so I can add them to the system.
- The parent post qualified his statement, saying DOS was "a clone of CPM/86, in EXACTLY the same way Linus Torvalds created a clone of Minix/Unix."
Yes, I agree that testing is a 'maximum bang for buck' engineering discipline.
I suggested the webcam for the physical blinking lights stuff the poster mentioned - this should be possible even today with open-source surveillance software I mentioned in passing (set zone, and the software continually analyse for image differences). For the GUI, screen capture would be more efficient.
True, creating a testing tool that did screen capture would be a hassle. However, IBM already Also, most informed people also suggest what you did about the GUI testing (which the poster may know about already).
However, IBM already has a product that does OCR on screen captures of mainframe applications.
Hmm, but that's not really testing the GUI directly. Sometime back I read about an IBM tool that actually does OCR on a predefined section of the screen to verify the functionality of the user interface.
There are also tools that query the actual components rendered on a window - sort of like the Spy++ tool included in Visual C++. This is the approach taken in the book "Effective GUI Test Automation" (ISBN 0-7821-4351-2)
With cheap webcams, open-source software for detecting/comparing changes in images (similar to that used in surveillance software), and open-source computer vison libraries like Intel OpenCV, it may be possible to develop something that actually verifies the entire system - software and hardware - that the Ask Slashdot question mentioned. i.e. something that actually checks if a light comes on, etc.
- We must disbelieve that which has been disproven objectively - We do not have enough evidence in order to prove or disprove everything - Several important decisions _need_ to be made on faith
Imagine you're a child. You are trapped in a burning building, at an open window on a high floor. Below is your Dad saying "Jump son, Jump! I will catch you".
Finally, except for a couple of points, you've reduced yourself to unsubstantiated allegations.
One point being: > Even the Greek texts of the gospels are at least transcriptions
The operating system you are using has been transcribed as well. But do you double check each post to make sure it wasn't submitted to some other website by mistake?
Exceptional care was taken in most Biblical transcription - you should know that by now. The Hebrew transcribers even used a version of checksumming.
The second: > Jesus was a great guy; but he's dead and gone and he ain't coming back. > In the real world, that never happens and never did. In your limited experience yes, it has never happened. In the experience of millions of others, including mine, he lives. You cannot disprove what you know nothing about.
> The Bible is an uncorroborated representation of events which may or may not have happened before the deaths of the authors.
The Bible is the most corroborated document in history. Besides the manuscript evidence, and the corroboration of historical events with contemporary sources, millions of people today (including me) personally testify about spiritual truths mentioned there.
> And we also know that Peter was the one that failed (ie, denined) Jesus quickest. In what way is thinking he killed Judas silly?
Because he was a coward. His faith in Jesus was shaken, his faith in his own courage had perished, he was on the run for his life and cowered behind locked doors and windows -- the last thing you expect is a blood vendetta against Judas. And then he met Jesus resurrected - what then is the need for vendetta?
> > "Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building." > Why?
Well, lower = warmer I imagine.
> > it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, > > at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). > > We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a > > large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of > > a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year."
> > Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers.
> That's a big list of objections. Just as well the ice cores are taken from different locations hundreds of miles apart > to reduce the chance of a freak weather event making a mess of the results. > You'd almost think the people doing this work were being careful or something!
Where would we be without your brilliant intellect cutting through previously impenetrable problems? You'd (almost) think those (non-creationists) experts raised those warnings just to play with our mind. Almost. It's a bit hard to correlate layers that are less than paper thick, don't you think? Or can they say: "Aha - both cores have a 11 mm layer, sandwiched between a 7 mm layer, and a 18 mm layer -- a definite pattern."
> BTW, staligmites and other mineral formations show seasonal layers too.... And you were timing the same variation that causes problems in ice cores cannot happen here eh?
They can also form in decades - not millenia or hundreds of thousands of years. read up
> > The Gospels are clear - Judas hung himself. > Acts is clear - Judas died in his field after a horrific bursting incident. But you are muddled. Acts simply says Judas' body burst after "becoming headlong" in his field. It does not say he "died" in that field.
> "Becoming headlong" is not really "he hung himself" or even "he was burried", Yes, it simply means : "Becoming headlong" - deal with it.
> in fact the translation to "fell" seems like a sensible translation of an otherwise odd passage/phrase. What? You don't like considering the Greek source? You'd rather take it on faith from a translator?
> Paul was in fact quite worried when he last saw James because > he had been caught out telling gentiles things he had told James he would not. Quote chapter and verse.... Paul opposed Peter to his face, because "he was in the wrong" - and Peter came around to his position. James gave Paul "the right hand of fellowship."!
Read this Even those "who seemed to be something" added nothing to Paul; that is, they exerted no power over his message. In fact, it became obvious to men like Peter, James and John that Paul was preaching the same message to the Gentiles that Peter was preaching to the Jews (Gal. 2:6-10). Peter, James and John "perceived the grace that had been given to" Paul, and so they "gave" him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." They expressed no desire or influence on Paul to change his message; they only desired that they practice benevolence. To this Paul said: "the very thing wh
Since you will rather make up an imaginary conversation in your head, and discount the capabilities of the lab, than read what is plainly mentioned in the article, you probably love fiction rather than truth. Anyway, here is what the page I had linked to right at the top said:
Note from the editor: Although it is never possible to be absolutely certain that contamination and sources of error have been eliminated, a laboratory's reputation depends on delivering 'good' results. At the time this test was done (1985), the head of this laboratory was on the Board of Editors of the international journal Radiocarbon. Also, the author of the article rang the laboratory in October 1996. The laboratory confirmed that the determination (done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method) had included everything possible to eliminate contamination, which included doing what is known as a d13CPDB correction. This is a critical test in regard to the possibility that the wood may have been contaminated by more recent microbes while in the ground or later.
Job's desire to save the lives of two guests under his protection went to the extent of offering his unmarried daughters to the men of his town. Nowhere in the Bible is it said this was a righteous act. It is just plain unemotional matter of fact reporting. But Job had a smigden of faith and believed God - it was that belief that saved him from being destroyed with the rest of Sodom and it was this belief that was counted to him as righteousness in God's eyes. But having stayed from God's will, he ended up alive, but with a destroyed life.
About realistic believable stories in the Bible, the plain matter of fact spirit of the Bible wins every day. What were the relationship between Bathsheba, David, and David's prime advisor and how did it influence their actions? (Hint: you don't need to go outside the Bible and make stuff up)
Yes, Baal and similar were unclean spirits, probably the spirits of dead people. I've seen similar. Your Western upbringing handicaps you to a lot of the home truths that are obvious in the Bible.
Monty Python? I haven't seen the movie either, but apparently it's a spoof about Moses dropping a stone tablet. But I imagine the commandments were the same. The fact that this webpage ends up in several proxies didn't mean it was created millions of times.
You're right - the "hung, swelled up, fell down, and burst" theory of Judas' hanging and "fall" is a bit difficult to believe. However, there is no "tripping" mentioned in the Bible passage about his bowels gushing out. The scriptural passage simply translated commonly as "falling" is simply Greek 'ginomai' whose meaning is "becoming" or "being made" headlong. Judas must have gone and hung himself at some place as the gospels say, then was cut down, and buried in his own field (by others) thus "being made headlong". Perhaps rough handling of his body would account for the his bowels gushing out from a rotting body when he was laid into the grave.
The idea that Peter went and murdered him is silly - Christ himself told Peter to keep his sword back in the scabbard when Judas was right in front of them and Jesus taught doing good to those that despise and persecute us.
Regarding your ice cores, see this: Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year.
The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model. Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Groo
> Imagine saying that Gandalf was real. God speaks to me. Gandalf does not. Of course, you can call me mad or hallucinatory. Doesn't alter the fact.
> As to God's wife's priestesses, they appear in the story > of the priests of Baal failing to light the fire and their Goodness - you're talking about Jezebel's priests failing to light a fire since they worship a dead God.
> sacred groves of trees which were part of Jewish temples Which are clearly mentioned as reprehensible by God.
> are mentioned in I think 4 or 5 other places, > including two points where there is a schism in the religion > and the groves are torn up and then re-planted. Aha - taking the meaning of a book, not from what it says, but theories of how it was written.
Try doing that to a modern novel, would you?
In "Romeo and Juliet", ostensibly by Shakespeare, but obviously authored by three separate authors - William, Shakeel and Spurgeon - over 4 centuries. The behavior of Romeo is initially established as open hearted and lively by the first author, then torn down given a touch of morality by the second, only to die in a burst of guilty Christian morality by the third author.
> Try to get a Bible with an index,... Spare me child. I can remember.
> WHERE did Cain and Seth get their wives again? Their SISTERS were their wives - isn't it obvious? Read up http://answersingenesis.org/ to see why it wasn't evil then, and similar precedents for it in the Bible.
> WHY is it good to have sex with your daughter if you're lonely? That is always bad - the bible documents the drunken seduction of Lot's two daughters - who think the entire world has ended, and they and Lot are the only survivors - of their own father as a point of warning. It contrast Lot and Abraham - both righteous - but whose lives had very different legacies since Lot loved the world, while Abraham went through it as an man seeking God's will, and passing through a foreign country.
> HOW many commandments did Jehova give Moses? 10. Surely, you don't believe a Monty Python movie over well documented historical sources?
> How MUCH for the TALKING DONKEY?) Well, donkey's are intelligent and God gave him the ability to speak. I think it appears even earlier. Adam spoke with the animals IIRC.
> why is Easter so-called and why does the Easter *Bunny* give out eggs? I observe Easter but don't follow the silly Easter bunny and egg tradition. Why should I feel guilty for some English label saying "Easter" which is probably caused by pagan traditions blended into a Christian one, like Christmas is (which I don't celebrate at all). Perhaps you want me to feel guilty about going to church on "Sun's day", which follows the sabbath (now called "Saturn's day").
> Jesus was married to Mary Magdelaine. HAHAHAHAHA! Perhaps you believe the knights templar are his bloodline as well, or Jesus visited holy brahmins in India and the lamas in Tibet (when he wasn't hanging with the druid dudes in Ireland) with regular flights back to Jerusalem on UFOs. Don't forget to renew your subscription to "Paranormal Times".
> She anoints his feet twice which a jewish wife > did as part of the (very long and silly) ritual > for marrage in those days, and the whole wedding > at Caina reeks of the fact that they were the bride > and groom. Wishful Balderdash! Jesus ALSO washed the feet of *his* 12 disciples and told them to wash *each others feet* too. Perhaps you think the entire early Christian church of Jesus' were all married to each other too - one big bisexual, bigamous, family. Idiot.
> To say nothing about the various other documents from > around the time, such as Phillip's gospel that contains > the famous argument between the deciples and Jesus about > his favourtism to Mary and the reference to them kissing > on the lips, a totally taboo thing for no
> the strange references to Jehova's wife's priestesses, and Jesus's wedding. Excellent! Post your evidence on Slashdot for the world to see.
> That's true. I've actually stood at geological formations that were laid > down in a day, never mind decades. Although it would have taken longer for > them to solidify into hard rock.
I was not talking about geological formations. I am talking about hard sandstone rock formed in a few decades from sand.
> So you say a sandstone bed might be 6000 years old. > Why not 6,000,000? What is placing the upper limit on the age?
There I was not interested in disproving an upper limit. Rather, I was proving the existence of a recent lower limit.
> The the dictionary meaning of fossil just defines > it as traces of organic life embedded in the earth's crust.... > Anyway, dinosaur bones do show mineralisation of the bone matrix, > a process which takes a long time, > so again you are trying to make a point about the > upper limit by saying what the lower limit is.
The dictionary definition is correct. You are wrong about the time needed for mineralization. Did you allege full mineralization is needed to for a bone to be a fossil ? -- if you did, you're wrong there too.
1. Philip J. Currie and Eva B. Koppelhus, 101 Questions about Dinosaurs, Dover Publications, 1996. Currie is a well-known dinosaur authority. He is Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada. Koppelhus is a visiting researcher at the same institution. Return to text.
Quote: For one thing, it says:
'Bones do not have to be "turned into stone" to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.'2
Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly 'permineralized.' This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn't this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:
'The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.'
> > Can you provide a link: I thought Carbon 14 is no longer absorbed once a living entity dies.?
> Sorry, that's mostly true, I should have said > " the background radiation in the test chamber", > not "absorbed by the fossil". It's 3am here and I fluffed my memory roll!
You did worse than fluff it. You allege: "In other words, all ancient fossils will give a more or less random date between 30 and 40 thousand years old." The reason you say, is "the background radiation in the test chamber".
However the page you pointed to DID NOT back your allegation. Rather it said: The maximum range of radiocarbon dating appears to be about 50,000 years, after which the amount of 14C is too low to be distinguished from Quick Facts about: background radiation Radiation coming from sources other than those being observedbackground radiation.
i.e. If a fossil exists that is older than 50000 years, it can't be reliably dated since the C 14 level is too low to detect above background radiation. With such low levels of C14, the item will appear indeterminately *older* than 50,000 years.
> There's a link here but there is information all over the place. If you have more i
You're right - it's burial in sandstone. My point is rapid rock formation can occur in a few decades, not just millions of years. So a dinosaur that died (shock, horror) 6000 years ago could have a bone embedded in sandstone.
"when you find a bone with the calcium lattice filled with, or replaced by, minerals..."
The the dictionary meaning of fossil just defines it as traces of organic life embedded in the earth's crust. As the article says: " The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said. "
"In other words, all ancient fossils will give a more or less random date between 30 and 40 thousand years old."...""time signiture" given by the background radiation absorbed by the fossil" Can you provide a link: I thought Carbon 14 is no longer absorbed once a living entity dies.?
To see how quickly sandstone fossils can form, see the latest 'Creation' print magazine by the publishers of that website. It shows they can form in a few decades. The pictures shows several such 'recent fossils' found by kids on a beach - bits of glass cemented together with sand, even a car's gearbox cemented into sandstone.
You wilfully misinterpreted them, and deceived yourself in the process. I quoted you and the original poster once, and *everything* has been based off that exchange.
> And I find it very strange that you talk about pride, considering the tone of your posts. I've tried to have a civil conversation with you, and brush off your insults and condecension, your rudeness and your deliberate misinterpretation of my position. I have answered your jibes with plain evidence.
Well, pride is something every person struggles with, or should struggle with. I know I do sometimes. And I have taken due care in my set of posts to neither malign you unfairly, nor let my pride impact my argument. If you look at the series of posts I made in this article, you will see corrections I posted (2 or 3 I think) when I found I was wrong. For example, my circular definition of human that you rightly pointed out.
But I tell you the truth - I find it truly appalling to see you so given over to the intoxicating thought of being right, fact don't carry across. I have conveyed that feeling in my posts.
You are a proud person. Pride is a useless emotion.
> Take a second to read your posts and imagine if I had answered you in the same tone that you've written to me, how would you view me then? Well, if I was as blazingly and consistently wrong, _I_ would want similar correction. No logs and splinters come to mind. Just a shamefacedness and humility I would have at holding onto falsehood that long as to be rebuked in so forceful a manner.
> Apparently the only way a person can avoid the sin of pride in your eyes is to agree with you. Hardly a humble stance. Another strawman analogy. See example above re: my correction to the circular definition of human.
> Likewise "your attack on him was wrong" is determined entirely by context.
> Did you mean to say "You directly quoted him and replied. However your disagreement with his view of individuality is wrong?"
Aha. FINALLY. A question!
I meant: Your attack of his quotation was wrong.
(Though most of your post attacking him was wrong, this is what I meant.)
What you've done here is cling to a perceived wrong, when there is none attempting to deny the fact that you are wrong.
> If you're not sure what someone said, clarify before disagreeing with them. It will save you a lot of arguments. Doctor, heal thyself.
> You're still refusing to follow my logic. The Constitution aims at protecting individuals, but does not lay down the definition of individual. You're beginning to sound like gates at the times of the anti-trust questioning.
> Here's the logical process that you seem to be using....
> 2. You assume that anyone discussing individuals uses your definition. Then why would I try to convince people otherwise. Please steady yourself.
> 3. You use anyone discussing "individuals" to support your definition of individual, even if they've given no indication that they share your definition. Goodness, you're not referring to the anti-abortion testimony of those doctors to Congress do you?
> #2 is repeatedly the weak link between #1 and #3 and you've made this mistake over and again. 2 of *your* 3 links are broken.
> At the time the constitution was written, some people did honestly believe that sperm cells were individuals. At the time the constitution was written, some people didn't believe blacks were human. Some still don't. So?
> The constitution wasn't concerned with when individuality began, however. No, it was more or less obvious. An unborn baby was an individual. Hence laws against abortion.
> So you can't use it as evidence to support your view of when individuality began. Goodness, see above!
> > You hold on to your "No shouting on the internet" attitude, I'll keep using the 'Shift' key for ma
Slashdot Mirror
FYI/
Nokia's new 770 Tablet - Debian Linux, X, Gnome, Opera, 802.11g, Bluetooth 1.2, 800x400 widescreen, handheld form factor - supposed to go on sale for US$ 350 within 4 months. (No phone included.)
Nokia's site for open-source components for the 770: Maemo.org has Linux sources and application development resources.
Developer's FAQ PDF here
> > Too bad windows is where the users are.
> Not on embedded devices.
Microsoft Now Leads in PDA, Embedded OS
Your parent poster is right. Linux is a Unix clone, as per the general meaning of that word in computing.
> Unless you mean something different by "clone" than the rest of the world.
Most people are comfortable using the word "clone" to describe 'work alikes', and not just systems that share source code.
- You can see this if you google for "Linus Unix clone".
- Andrew Tanenbaum calls Minix "a minimal UNIX clone", (though he didn't use any AT&T UNIX source)
- Linus' initial usenet posting called Linux "a minix-lookalike". At the time, Linux was quite depedant on Minix, needing Minix sources to compile (though no Minix source was used in Linux).
- Linux was also a Minix (and hence a Unix) 'work alike'. In the same post, Linus expressed interest in reusing existing code written for Minix, for Linux: I'm also interested in hearing from anybody who has written any of the utilities/library functions for minix. If your efforts are freely
distributable (under copyright or even public domain), I'd like to hear from you, so I can add them to the system.
- The parent post qualified his statement, saying DOS was "a clone of CPM/86, in EXACTLY the same way Linus Torvalds created a clone of Minix/Unix."
Parallel processing
Thanks for the reply... sorry for my late followup.
Do you know if the WiMax chipsets used the client and those used at the hub are different, and work in different ways?
Most WiFi chipsets are similar for access points and regular users, and I was hoping it would be like that for WiMax too.
I've asked the question here before but didn't get an definitive answer....
Do WiMax do adhoc networks like Wifi does currently? Can you setup a WiMax network at home?
Or do you _have_ to signup to an ISP that runs the WiMax infrastructure.
I think the latter may be necessary due to expensive adaptive antennae used in WiMax.
Yes, I agree that testing is a 'maximum bang for buck' engineering discipline.
I suggested the webcam for the physical blinking lights stuff the poster mentioned - this should be possible even today with open-source surveillance software I mentioned in passing (set zone, and the software continually analyse for image differences). For the GUI, screen capture would be more efficient.
True, creating a testing tool that did screen capture would be a hassle. However, IBM already Also, most informed people also suggest what you did about the GUI testing (which the poster may know about already).
However, IBM already has a product that does OCR on screen captures of mainframe applications.
Hmm, but that's not really testing the GUI directly. Sometime back I read about an IBM tool that actually does OCR on a predefined section of the screen to verify the functionality of the user interface.
There are also tools that query the actual components rendered on a window - sort of like the Spy++ tool included in Visual C++. This is the approach taken in the book "Effective GUI Test Automation" (ISBN 0-7821-4351-2)
With cheap webcams, open-source software for detecting/comparing changes in images (similar to that used in surveillance software), and open-source computer vison libraries like Intel OpenCV, it may be possible to develop something that actually verifies the entire system - software and hardware - that the Ask Slashdot question mentioned. i.e. something that actually checks if a light comes on, etc.
Here's hoping your kids are resilient.
similar thing, without the reboots:
Build a heterogeneous cluster with coLinux and openMosix
A few years back, I spent about a year with two 15" CRT monitors, and yes, I felt much better after I got rid of one.
I am pretty sure I ran them up at a higher-than-60 vert. refresh: probably 75 or 80 Hz IIRC.
> The difference is that you can see and hear your dad standing down there. ...
> Some people say God speaks to them. Some people also...
God spoke to me. You can verify God's existence by searching for him.
> If God is saying anything to me, it's "do as I say, and not as I do".
> I refuse to follow anyone with a message like that.
Your impression is wrong, and I don't know why you would carry it. It looks like a "poison pill defense" against the possibility of ever knowing God.
- We must disbelieve that which has been disproven objectively
- We do not have enough evidence in order to prove or disprove everything
- Several important decisions _need_ to be made on faith
Objective evidence does not disprove the Bible, but lends credence to it
Imagine you're a child. You are trapped in a burning building, at an open window on a high floor. Below is your Dad saying "Jump son, Jump! I will catch you".
It's like this between God and you.
Finally, except for a couple of points, you've reduced yourself to unsubstantiated allegations.
One point being:
> Even the Greek texts of the gospels are at least transcriptions
The operating system you are using has been transcribed as well. But do you double check each post to make sure it wasn't submitted to some other website by mistake?
Exceptional care was taken in most Biblical transcription - you should know that by now. The Hebrew transcribers even used a version of checksumming.
The second:
> Jesus was a great guy; but he's dead and gone and he ain't coming back.
> In the real world, that never happens and never did.
In your limited experience yes, it has never happened. In the experience of millions of others, including mine, he lives. You cannot disprove what you know nothing about.
Another minor problem with your point .. authors cannot write about events after they die.
Thanks for clarifying that.
> The Bible is an uncorroborated representation of events which may or may not have happened before the deaths of the authors.
The Bible is the most corroborated document in history. Besides the manuscript evidence, and the corroboration of historical events with contemporary sources, millions of people today (including me) personally testify about spiritual truths mentioned there.
> And we also know that Peter was the one that failed (ie, denined) Jesus quickest. In what way is thinking he killed Judas silly?
.... Paul opposed Peter to his face, because "he was in the wrong" - and Peter came around to his position. James gave Paul "the right hand of fellowship."!
Because he was a coward. His faith in Jesus was shaken, his faith in his own courage had perished, he was on the run for his life and cowered behind locked doors and windows -- the last thing you expect is a blood vendetta against Judas.
And then he met Jesus resurrected - what then is the need for vendetta?
> > "Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building."
> Why?
Well, lower = warmer I imagine.
> > it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level,
> > at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.).
> > We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a
> > large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of
> > a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year."
> > Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers.
> That's a big list of objections. Just as well the ice cores are taken from different locations hundreds of miles apart
> to reduce the chance of a freak weather event making a mess of the results.
> You'd almost think the people doing this work were being careful or something!
Where would we be without your brilliant intellect cutting through previously impenetrable problems? You'd (almost) think those (non-creationists) experts raised those warnings just to play with our mind. Almost.
It's a bit hard to correlate layers that are less than paper thick, don't you think? Or can they say: "Aha - both cores have a 11 mm layer, sandwiched between a 7 mm layer, and a 18 mm layer -- a definite pattern."
> BTW, staligmites and other mineral formations show seasonal layers too....
And you were timing the same variation that causes problems in ice cores cannot happen here eh?
They can also form in decades - not millenia or hundreds of thousands of years.
read up
> > The Gospels are clear - Judas hung himself.
> Acts is clear - Judas died in his field after a horrific bursting incident.
But you are muddled. Acts simply says Judas' body burst after "becoming headlong" in his field. It does not say he "died" in that field.
> "Becoming headlong" is not really "he hung himself" or even "he was burried",
Yes, it simply means : "Becoming headlong" - deal with it.
> in fact the translation to "fell" seems like a sensible translation of an otherwise odd passage/phrase.
What? You don't like considering the Greek source? You'd rather take it on faith from a translator?
> Paul was in fact quite worried when he last saw James because
> he had been caught out telling gentiles things he had told James he would not.
Quote chapter and verse
Read this
Even those "who seemed to be something" added nothing to Paul; that is, they exerted no power over his message. In fact, it became obvious to men like Peter, James and John that Paul was preaching the same message to the Gentiles that Peter was preaching to the Jews (Gal. 2:6-10). Peter, James and John "perceived the grace that had been given to" Paul, and so they "gave" him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." They expressed no desire or influence on Paul to change his message; they only desired that they practice benevolence. To this Paul said: "the very thing wh
hydrogen essentially currently is.
Any information on how much fossil fuel a suborbital shots will burn per passenger?
Since you will rather make up an imaginary conversation in your head, and discount the capabilities of the lab, than read what is plainly mentioned in the article, you probably love fiction rather than truth. Anyway, here is what the page I had linked to right at the top said:
Note from the editor: Although it is never possible to be absolutely certain that contamination and sources of error have been eliminated, a laboratory's reputation depends on delivering 'good' results. At the time this test was done (1985), the head of this laboratory was on the Board of Editors of the international journal Radiocarbon. Also, the author of the article rang the laboratory in October 1996. The laboratory confirmed that the determination (done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method) had included everything possible to eliminate contamination, which included doing what is known as a d13CPDB correction. This is a critical test in regard to the possibility that the wood may have been contaminated by more recent microbes while in the ground or later.
Job's desire to save the lives of two guests under his protection went to the extent of offering his unmarried daughters to the men of his town. Nowhere in the Bible is it said this was a righteous act. It is just plain unemotional matter of fact reporting. But Job had a smigden of faith and believed God - it was that belief that saved him from being destroyed with the rest of Sodom and it was this belief that was counted to him as righteousness in God's eyes. But having stayed from God's will, he ended up alive, but with a destroyed life.
About realistic believable stories in the Bible, the plain matter of fact spirit of the Bible wins every day. What were the relationship between Bathsheba, David, and David's prime advisor and how did it influence their actions? (Hint: you don't need to go outside the Bible and make stuff up)
Yes, Baal and similar were unclean spirits, probably the spirits of dead people. I've seen similar. Your Western upbringing handicaps you to a lot of the home truths that are obvious in the Bible.
Monty Python? I haven't seen the movie either, but apparently it's a spoof about Moses dropping a stone tablet. But I imagine the commandments were the same. The fact that this webpage ends up in several proxies didn't mean it was created millions of times.
You're right - the "hung, swelled up, fell down, and burst" theory of Judas' hanging and "fall" is a bit difficult to believe. However, there is no "tripping" mentioned in the Bible passage about his bowels gushing out. The scriptural passage simply translated commonly as "falling" is simply Greek 'ginomai' whose meaning is "becoming" or "being made" headlong. Judas must have gone and hung himself at some place as the gospels say, then was cut down, and buried in his own field (by others) thus "being made headlong". Perhaps rough handling of his body would account for the his bowels gushing out from a rotting body when he was laid into the grave.
The idea that Peter went and murdered him is silly - Christ himself told Peter to keep his sword back in the scabbard when Judas was right in front of them and Jesus taught doing good to those that despise and persecute us.
Regarding your ice cores, see this:
Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year.
The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model. Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Groo
> Imagine saying that Gandalf was real.
...
God speaks to me. Gandalf does not. Of course, you can call me mad or hallucinatory. Doesn't alter the fact.
> As to God's wife's priestesses, they appear in the story
> of the priests of Baal failing to light the fire and their
Goodness - you're talking about Jezebel's priests failing to light a fire since they worship a dead God.
> sacred groves of trees which were part of Jewish temples
Which are clearly mentioned as reprehensible by God.
> are mentioned in I think 4 or 5 other places,
> including two points where there is a schism in the religion
> and the groves are torn up and then re-planted.
Aha - taking the meaning of a book, not from what it says, but theories of how it was written.
Try doing that to a modern novel, would you?
In "Romeo and Juliet", ostensibly by Shakespeare, but obviously authored by three separate authors - William, Shakeel and Spurgeon - over 4 centuries. The behavior of Romeo is initially established as open hearted and lively by the first author, then torn down given a touch of morality by the second, only to die in a burst of guilty Christian morality by the third author.
> Try to get a Bible with an index,
Spare me child. I can remember.
> WHERE did Cain and Seth get their wives again?
Their SISTERS were their wives - isn't it obvious?
Read up http://answersingenesis.org/ to see why it wasn't evil then, and similar precedents for it in the Bible.
> WHY is it good to have sex with your daughter if you're lonely?
That is always bad - the bible documents the drunken seduction of Lot's two daughters - who think the entire world has ended, and they and Lot are the only survivors - of their own father as a point of warning. It contrast Lot and Abraham - both righteous - but whose lives had very different legacies since Lot loved the world, while Abraham went through it as an man seeking God's will, and passing through a foreign country.
> HOW many commandments did Jehova give Moses?
10. Surely, you don't believe a Monty Python movie over well documented historical sources?
> How MUCH for the TALKING DONKEY?)
Well, donkey's are intelligent and God gave him the ability to speak. I think it appears even earlier. Adam spoke with the animals IIRC.
> why is Easter so-called and why does the Easter *Bunny* give out eggs?
I observe Easter but don't follow the silly Easter bunny and egg tradition. Why should I feel guilty for some English label saying "Easter" which is probably caused by pagan traditions blended into a Christian one, like Christmas is (which I don't celebrate at all). Perhaps you want me to feel guilty about going to church on "Sun's day", which follows the sabbath (now called "Saturn's day").
> Jesus was married to Mary Magdelaine.
HAHAHAHAHA! Perhaps you believe the knights templar are his bloodline as well, or Jesus visited holy brahmins in India and the lamas in Tibet (when he wasn't hanging with the druid dudes in Ireland) with regular flights back to Jerusalem on UFOs. Don't forget to renew your subscription to "Paranormal Times".
> She anoints his feet twice which a jewish wife
> did as part of the (very long and silly) ritual
> for marrage in those days, and the whole wedding
> at Caina reeks of the fact that they were the bride
> and groom.
Wishful Balderdash! Jesus ALSO washed the feet of *his* 12 disciples and told them to wash *each others feet* too. Perhaps you think the entire early Christian church of Jesus' were all married to each other too - one big bisexual, bigamous, family. Idiot.
> To say nothing about the various other documents from
> around the time, such as Phillip's gospel that contains
> the famous argument between the deciples and Jesus about
> his favourtism to Mary and the reference to them kissing
> on the lips, a totally taboo thing for no
Excellent! Post your evidence on Slashdot for the world to see.
> That's true. I've actually stood at geological formations that were laid
> down in a day, never mind decades. Although it would have taken longer for
> them to solidify into hard rock.
I was not talking about geological formations. I am talking about hard sandstone rock formed in a few decades from sand.
> So you say a sandstone bed might be 6000 years old.
> Why not 6,000,000? What is placing the upper limit on the age?
There I was not interested in disproving an upper limit. Rather, I was proving the existence of a recent lower limit.
> The the dictionary meaning of fossil just defines
> it as traces of organic life embedded in the earth's crust.
> Anyway, dinosaur bones do show mineralisation of the bone matrix,
> a process which takes a long time,
> so again you are trying to make a point about the
> upper limit by saying what the lower limit is.
The dictionary definition is correct. You are wrong about the time needed for mineralization. Did you allege full mineralization is needed to for a bone to be a fossil ? -- if you did, you're wrong there too.
This article quotes from a book by these authors:
Quote:
For one thing, it says:
'Bones do not have to be "turned into stone" to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.'2
Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly 'permineralized.' This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn't this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:
'The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.'
> > Can you provide a link: I thought Carbon 14 is no longer absorbed once a living entity dies.?
> Sorry, that's mostly true, I should have said
> " the background radiation in the test chamber",
> not "absorbed by the fossil". It's 3am here and I fluffed my memory roll!
You did worse than fluff it. You allege: "In other words, all ancient fossils will give a more or less random date between 30 and 40 thousand years old." The reason you say, is "the background radiation in the test chamber".
However the page you pointed to DID NOT back your allegation. Rather it said:
The maximum range of radiocarbon dating appears to be about 50,000 years, after which the amount of 14C is too low to be distinguished from Quick Facts about: background radiation
Radiation coming from sources other than those being observedbackground radiation.
i.e. If a fossil exists that is older than 50000 years, it can't be reliably dated since the C 14 level is too low to detect above background radiation. With such low levels of C14, the item will appear indeterminately *older* than 50,000 years.
> There's a link here but there is information all over the place.
If you have more i
The Bible is right.
..."
" not fossilisation, that's just burial."
You're right - it's burial in sandstone. My point is rapid rock formation can occur in a few decades, not just millions of years. So a dinosaur that died (shock, horror) 6000 years ago could have a bone embedded in sandstone.
"when you find a bone with the calcium lattice filled with, or replaced by, minerals
The the dictionary meaning of fossil just defines it as traces of organic life embedded in the earth's crust. As the article says: " The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said. "
"In other words, all ancient fossils will give a more or less random date between 30 and 40 thousand years old."...""time signiture" given by the background radiation absorbed by the fossil"
Can you provide a link: I thought Carbon 14 is no longer absorbed once a living entity dies.?
Of course this backs Biblical Creation.
This fossil was apparently 70 million years old and found embedded in sandstone.
For an account of dating problems with another sandstone fossil, see:
In 1984, I was on a geological excursion in Mägenwil (Switzerland). I collected some sandstone samples with fossilized mussels in it...
To see how quickly sandstone fossils can form, see the latest 'Creation' print magazine by the publishers of that website. It shows they can form in a few decades. The pictures shows several such 'recent fossils' found by kids on a beach - bits of glass cemented together with sand, even a car's gearbox cemented into sandstone.
> I took your words literally.
...
You wilfully misinterpreted them, and deceived yourself in the process.
I quoted you and the original poster once, and *everything* has been based off that exchange.
> And I find it very strange that you talk about pride, considering the tone of your posts. I've tried to have a civil conversation with you, and brush off your insults and condecension, your rudeness and your deliberate misinterpretation of my position. I have answered your jibes with plain evidence.
Well, pride is something every person struggles with, or should struggle with. I know I do sometimes. And I have taken due care in my set of posts to neither malign you unfairly, nor let my pride impact my argument. If you look at the series of posts I made in this article, you will see corrections I posted (2 or 3 I think) when I found I was wrong. For example, my circular definition of human that you rightly pointed out.
But I tell you the truth - I find it truly appalling to see you so given over to the intoxicating thought of being right, fact don't carry across. I have conveyed that feeling in my posts.
You are a proud person. Pride is a useless emotion.
> Take a second to read your posts and imagine if I had answered you in the same tone that you've written to me, how would you view me then?
Well, if I was as blazingly and consistently wrong, _I_ would want similar correction. No logs and splinters come to mind. Just a shamefacedness and humility I would have at holding onto falsehood that long as to be rebuked in so forceful a manner.
> Apparently the only way a person can avoid the sin of pride in your eyes is to agree with you. Hardly a humble stance.
Another strawman analogy. See example above re: my correction to the circular definition of human.
>
Likewise "your attack on him was wrong" is determined entirely by context.
> Did you mean to say "You directly quoted him and replied. However your disagreement with his view of individuality is wrong?"
Aha. FINALLY. A question!
I meant: Your attack of his quotation was wrong.
(Though most of your post attacking him was wrong, this is what I meant.)
What you've done here is cling to a perceived wrong, when there is none attempting to deny the fact that you are wrong.
> If you're not sure what someone said, clarify before disagreeing with them. It will save you a lot of arguments.
Doctor, heal thyself.
> You're still refusing to follow my logic. The Constitution aims at protecting individuals, but does not lay down the definition of individual.
You're beginning to sound like gates at the times of the anti-trust questioning.
> Here's the logical process that you seem to be using.
> 2. You assume that anyone discussing individuals uses your definition.
Then why would I try to convince people otherwise. Please steady yourself.
> 3. You use anyone discussing "individuals" to support your definition of individual, even if they've given no indication that they share your definition.
Goodness, you're not referring to the anti-abortion testimony of those doctors to Congress do you?
> #2 is repeatedly the weak link between #1 and #3 and you've made this mistake over and again.
2 of *your* 3 links are broken.
> At the time the constitution was written, some people did honestly believe that sperm cells were individuals.
At the time the constitution was written, some people didn't believe blacks were human. Some still don't. So?
> The constitution wasn't concerned with when individuality began, however.
No, it was more or less obvious. An unborn baby was an individual. Hence laws against abortion.
> So you can't use it as evidence to support your view of when individuality began.
Goodness, see above!
> > You hold on to your "No shouting on the internet" attitude, I'll keep using the 'Shift' key for ma