The Sharp site has more information. It does not use Lenticulars, but a latent parallax barrier to discriminate between vision for each eye. The barrier is latent because it polarizes the light differently for each eye. In 2D mode, this polarization is invisible to the naked eye, so you get a regular, full resolution, 2D display. If you add a 3D polarizing screen to the monitor, and have it aligned within 1 degree of its true allignment, then this screen will discriminate between the two images, and effectively create 2 windows in space. One for the left eye, and one for the right.
They have improved previous attempts at a 2D/3D display. In previous versions, it was the parallax barrier that you had to place on the monitor and allign properly. Typical constraints on the alignment were about 5 arc seconds. That is about 700 times more precise than the 1% constraint. So this makes it useable for most people. I guess you can just keep adjusting the polarizing screen until you get the correct image.
According to Sharp, there will be a "sweet-spot" where you can see proper 3D. If you are outside of this area, the image will not display correctly and you would not get a 3D view. I don't know how large/small this sweet spot is, though. They are hoping for a system in the future that would allow many people to crowd around a display and see the same image. But not yet.
There may be alot to gain from stem cell research, but the problem, as has already been stated, is the taking of life to obtain those cells. What we are really talking about here is the same as the abortion issue. Where does life begin? Pro-Choice and stem cell advocates would like to set the definition of life to birth (or perhaps later) so that they can do these things without it being considered Murder.
Stem Cell Researchers don't want to have to think about the morality of what they are doing, because they see the great potential in the research. That is understandable. I personally believe that life starts when you have a fertalized egg. I think that stem cell research should not be ruled out. But we need a good and morally un-controversial method of obtaining them. That should be our first priority. Once we have that, we don't have to worry about the killing babies issue.
The problem with broadband content on the net is that not enough of the population have broadband. Most of the population are content with their 56K connections. They don't see the need for broadband because there is not enough content out there that needs it. IMO, this is a big step forward. It is true that there may not be tons of people who log on just to download this movie, but some will. And perhaps in a month or two, there will be more movies available. Once there is content that you have to have broadband to access, there will be more people who will decide to go with broadband, and then there will be a bigger thrust for broadband content. It all starts with one company willing to put it on the line like this.
Another note: I saw a few months ago on Silicon Spin (TechTV) a segment on broadband. The conclusion of the interviews is basically what I have in the above paragraph. Another thing that they pointed out was that current DSL and Cable modem shouldn't really be considered broadband. The bitrate just isn't high enough to easily allow you to view streaming high resolution movies yet. So, it may take you a while to download this move, or maybe they need to be offered at lower resolution for a while. But other broadband options may be on the way, such as VDSL (16 Mbps Up, 52 Mbps Down) may begin to spread faster if we have such internet broadband content available.
Would this work for people who cannot tan naturally? I have never been able to tan, I just burn or get freckles. It would be nice if this would work for people like me.
Well, I was intentionally simplifying the issue. You are right, and there is alot of complexities that I didn't address in the workplace. What I am saying is that it ultimately boils down to this. I am the employee, I am selling you a service. You are the employer, you are buying the service. If the deal is not suitable to either one of us, then we can terminate the employment. We each have stipulations for the deal to be acceptible. I may charge you 50,000 a year. You may say, "ok, but I can monitor your computer use." If you don't feel I am worth that, or I don't want you looking over my shoulder, then You don't offer, or I don't accept.
Well, this creates another problem, because it infringes on the rights of the person in the bathroom. The employer has the right to do any of these things as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of the employee. I don't believe you have the right to use the company telephone to make personal phone calls, so the company could monitor it.
In reality, most companies would never stoops to such tactics.
In business, there are employers and employees. When you work for a company, you have to do what the company tells you to or the company will decide to do without you. However, if the company tells you to do something that you will not do, or puts you in a situation that you find unfair, or stressful, or whatever, then you will decide that you can to quit and find another company more suitable for you.
The same is true of a patient/doctor relationship. In this case you are the employer and he is the employee. You are paying him for a service. You could specify that he must allow you to monitor everything that he does on his computer while you are paying him. He would laugh at you and say "No." He can do that because he makes enough money from other patients that he doesn't need you. If he needed your money enough, he would decide that he could live with that situation, and would allow you to do it.
Now you couldn't do it without his knowledge or consent, simply because the computer belongs to him, not you. In a company environment, the equipment belongs to the company. So they can install whatever they want on their machines, and monitor you on the computer,telephone,or even by camera.
A better analogy than a doctor might be a plumber or electrician that you hire to come to your house and fix your plumbing or equipment. You could specify that you are going to monitor everything that they do while in your house. This is your right because the equipment belongs to you, the employer.
What you say is basically true. The company can only afford their assets because of the work of the employees.
But it is still the company's assets, not yours. I know that some companies are employee owned, and that you may have stock options or whatever, but the assets still belong to the company, which is controlled by whatever leading body your company may have, President, Board, Dictator, whatever. Yes, the work that you do gives them a product/service to sell so that they can afford to buy computers and internet services, but if you don't abide by company policy regarding these issues, or other ones, then they will let you go, and find someone else that will. Then you are no longer putting money in their pocket. Now if you are so indespensible that they can't get rid of you, then more power to you. Email all you want. But for the rest of us, it comes down to one simple point, The company is paying you for your work. This does not include lunch, going to the bathroom, or sending email. Luckily, most companies understand that people aren't machines, and they have to have time to go to the bathroom, take mental breaks, and interact with each other on non-work topics. It all depends on your company. I work for a company that doesn't mind personal email, telephone calls, or internet surfing, as long as you don't do it too much. If you have to send personal email from work, I suggest you make sure that you work for a company that allows that.
We actually have one of the damn live bate vending machines outside of Wal-Mart.
Craziest thing I ever saw.
A friend of mine lives near a florist that has a fresh flowers vending machine, so that you can get flowers 24/7. And we all know how important that is.
Definately try to recycle any old hardware if it works. My wife is a special ed teacher, and always trying to find people to donate old machines. It is amazing how many individuals and companies will just trash an old system before looking to see if anyone else wants to use it.
I agree that love is not a diamond ring. What I said does not apply to everyone. My wife told me not to get her a big ring. It just depends on your perspective. I like going to nice dinners and spending money (even if i don't have it). Other people think that spending a hundred bucks on a dinner when 30 will do at an Olive Garden is stupid. Just depends on what you like. In my situation, I am glad I got her the ring. In yours, you are glad to still have money in your pocket. Everyone is happy.
i disagree. I choose to read the Bible, which I believe is infallable, and to discern what I believe as truth from there. I agree that it would have been equally possible for God to have used evolution, because I believe that he is all powerful. I don't think that either one is more bueatiful, interesting, or godly than the other. I simply believe what I believe because that is what the Bible says.
To be more clear, God could have created the universe however he saw fit, whether it was 7 days, evolution over millenia, or a big sneeze. But God cannot lie, God inspired Genesis, and Genesis does not agree with directed evolution.
I know that micro-evolution is a proven fact, and have no problem with it. That is why I specifically addressed macro-evolution. The day-age theory of the creation is fairly popular. I don't believe that. I believe that the world was created in 7 actual days. And I think that you can discern the age of the earth, and therefore the universe, via secular and biblical histories.
You are right. My belief is a theory. I personally see it as a fact, but would not try and force this belief on anyone else. My belief is commonly viewed as a theory. Evolution is given lip service as being a theory, then convieniently portrayed as a fact in schools and media. I object to that.
After this post, I will also resign from this discussion, but I feel that your points should be addressed. I appreciate that you did not resort to futile name calling like many of the anti-creationists do.
Being a Christian, and choosing to find my own answers to what is truth and what is not, I have studied and thought on many of your points. Here I will address the points that you have made.
If God knows our future, and he is omnipotent, then that means that we are on a set course. If we had free will and were able to do what we wanted, then God wouldn't know what was going to happen next.
Not necessarily. God created space and time. Therefore he exists outside of conventional space and time. If you will try to think 4 dimensionally for a minute: A being existing outside of the bounds of our timeline could potentially see all points in that line simultaneously. I know that it is hard for us (being inside the bounds of this line) to comprehend that, but I think that it stands to reason that many things concerning a supreme being are going to be hard, if not impossible for us to visualize or comprehend. We have no way of knowing what would and wouldn't be possible if we were outside of the boundaries of time. Therefore, I believe that it is possible that God can know our futures without taking a direct hand in forcing the outcome. Does that mean that our futures are set and we can't control our own lives? I don't think so. We control our destiny, we make the choices, and we perform our own actions. God just has a knowledge of what the end result will be. This topic is one of the things that we Christians have to eventually admit that only Faith in the truth of the Bible can resolve at this time. Just like other incomprehensible subjects such as the Godhead, Infinity, Perfect Justice, and Providence.
Genesis 1:1 If God had to creat the heavens, where was he before? Biblical scholars determined that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C. thereby making the earth about six thousand years old.
I believe that I answered this point in my previous paragraph. God exists outside conventional space and time.
Genesis 1:16 there are not 2 great lights. The light coming from the moon is a reflection of the light coming from the sun.
There is a lot that literary tools used in Genesis. I believe this to be one of them. From an observation point of view, it is two great lights.
Genesis 1:29 God gave us all the plants on the Earth to eat. So why are there poisonous plants that will kill us?
I don't think that this passage says that we are to eat every plant on earth. It says that we are given every "herb bearing seed." He also gave us all of the animals to have dominion over, but then Jewish law specifies which animals not to touch because they are "unclean."
Genesis 2:17 Adam ate from the tree and did not die.
When Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he did die. It was not an instantaneous death, but he died spiritually at that point, and I think that it can be argued that he began to die physically. Before this act, he was able to eat of the tree of Life. There was no indication that Adam or Eve were ever aging or going to die. After this act, they were banished from the garden, and the presence of the Tree of Life. After this, they began to grow old and die.
Genesis 7:11-12 Noah was 600 years old?!?! What ever. And are we to believe that the world was popluated from only Noah, his wife and his sons and their wives? geneticly impossible to stem out into asian, blacks, whites, hispanic etc from just the original 'arabic' race in the last 4000 years(the floods are to believed to have happened aroung 2007 B.C.)(arabic term used because this all happened in the middle east).
Yes he was. And there were older. Methuselah lived to be 969 years old. That is almost 1000 years! By a interesting coincidence, by my observations, that would mean he died in the year of the flood, so he must not have been faithful. Or he died before the flood. Anyway, at that time, people could live that long. After the flood, the average lifespan of man was shortened. I believe that it was shortened again at the tower of Babel. This also ties in with the physics behind the flood. When God created the earth, it says that he separated the waters, and the space between he called the heavens. One body of water above, and one below. So apparently there was a sphere of water surrounding the earth. It has been speculated that this body of water would act as a barrier to harmful radiation from the sun and other cosmic bodies. It is safe to assume that with Adam and Eve, the genetic structure was perfect. No mutations. This is why it was possible for there to be inbreeding at the beginning without adverse effects. Remember, Cain and Seth had to have wives too. Stands to reason that it was their sister. Who else? Anyway, after the flood, this protective barrier would be eliminated, allowing harmful radiation to affect us. Remember this is just speculation. I don't know if God took a direct hand in limiting the lifespan of man, or if he allowed nature to do it for him. But I think that either is plausible.
Genesis 6:15 There would have been about only 1.5 cubic feet of space for every pair of animals on the Ark for the estimated 4 million+ different species of animals. Since you don't believe in evolution, that would mean everything(and everyday we are finding different species)(hmm, what about the fish? If God wanted to kill all the animals of the world, why would he leave the fish 7:14 no metion of fish, there is only mention of animals that walk the ground, and the birds in the air.)
It wasn't God's purpose to kill all the animals. He wanted to wipe Man from the face of the earth. The animals had done nothing wrong, not being able to sin or know right from wrong. Man was the problem. So he would have no reason to kill the fish or sea mammals. And it would have been silly to put them in the ark. Now about the animals. You are probably overestimating the space if your calculations are correct. (I am assuming that they may be, and not checking) Noah only took some animals in pairs. Some of the animals, I believe the ones at the time deemed "unclean," were taken in groups of 7. So they probably had much less space. I don't know how they fit. And if you take into account that Noah may have had some dinosaurs on board, this might further complicate matters. But remember that Noah did not have to take fully grown animals into the ark. They could have been babies, or even eggs at the time. God could have made sure (through divine intervention) that no eggs would break and that all animals would survive the journey. Maybe they didn't even have to eat during that time. I can see how this could have been plausible, so chalk another one up to Faith.
Genesis 7:19-20 It would have to rain more than 750 feet per day for 40 days/night to cover the world so that the mountains would be covered by a depth of 15 cubits (about 20 feet) There is no evidence of such a massive flood. Wouldn't there be evidence if the whole world was covered in water for 150 days?
Two things here. One is my comment from above. The water sphere around the earth. This was the time that God collapsed that sphere. This would account for quite a bit of water. Also, it says that water came from within the ground. So all of the water did not have to come from above. Was all of the water there before the flood? Maybe not. God could have intervened and added plenty of water. He could also have taken it away after the flood. So the flood is possible. Plus I have seen lots of scientific evidence that points to a global flood. Fossilized remains of fish on the tops of mountains and the like. So the flood was definitely possible.
Genesis 32:25-30 If God was so powerful why could he not win in a wrestling match with Jacob, a mortal?
Well he could have. That must not have been what he was trying to do.
Exodus 12:37 There was 600,000 men on foot, not including women, children, and the elderly. Round up to 1.5 million total. The total population for Egypt at the time was estimated at less than 2 million. Doesn't add up.
I disagree. I think that it does add up. Joseph died, and the Pharaoh, who had liked him and given the land of Goshen (the most fertile land around) to his family, had died. The new Pharaoh had no reason to sustain these people in his country. So he enslaved them. They grew and multiplied while they were enslaved. They were abused and ruled with iron fists. The Egyptians made sure that they would not rise up. Maybe God had a hand in their complacency as well. The Pharaoh was afraid of the Israelites. God could have influenced this nation to grow and multiply quickly.
Leviticus 14:49-53 Sounds like witch craft.
So? Lots of the laws back then were similar. What about spreading lambs blood on the door posts to avoid the angel of death in Exodus. No matter what it sounds like. This was God's law at the time.
1 Timothy 6:10 Money is not the root of all evil. Lots of poor people do evil things. Lots of rich people do good things.
Yes they do, but this verse is pointing out that human greed is the root of all evil. Not necessarily that every evil action is caused directly by greed.
Matthew 26:52 says all who take the sword, perish by the sword. But Jesus took a sword in Matthew 10:34
No he didn't. He is speaking metaphorically of a sword. Not taking one up to use in battle. However, he did, in essence "Die by the sword", which I take to mean die by violence.
MK 11:12-14, 20-21 Wouldn't it have been better to make the fig tree produce, than to curse it and kill it?
It depends greatly on what is trying to be accomplished. Jesus cursed the tree as another proof of who he was and the power of God (Verse 22).
One final note. The Bible cannot be logically explained without including the divine power of God and the supernatural. Everything in the Bible may not be physically possible today. I have yet to discover a fallacy that cannot be explained with thorough study. This fact, as well as my observations of the world around me, make me positive that there is a God. And the Bible is his message to us. This helps me to have Faith in both him and his word. What inspires the Faith of the evolutionist?
If you have ever bothered to actually read the Bible, then you would know that "Christmas" is never mentioned. Christmas is something that most Christians have adopted as a holiday over several generations. Jesus was not born on Dec 25? You are right. I never have claimed that he was. I have no doubt that many Christians think that he was, sadly because people don't take the time to understand what they claim to "believe". I also don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. Yes I sing the songs, and all that, but not in celebration of the Birth of Jesus. Christmas is a time to be with family and friends, and buy lots and lots of stuff.:)
Now a note on Free will. I believe 100% in free will. We are "free moral agents" who chose our own path. That is the purpose of life. I do not hold to the Calvinistic view that we are predestined to either be in heaven or hell. This is determined by 2 things: the grace of God, and our actions. Grace alone cannot get us there. And we cannot "earn" our way by just our actions. You are incorrect when you say that "All" major religions believe in predestination. They do not. Many do, but not all. God, being omnipotent, knows our futures, but he doesn't determine them.
The Bible is not just a bunch of stories handed down. People say that who haven't read and do not believe the Bible. That makes sense. By your comment on Christmas, I know that you have not read the Bible, or if you have, you didn't pay much attention to its content. If you wish to tell me of a case where the Bible has been proven wrong, go ahead, and I will comment on that. But Christmas, not being in the Bible at all, is not proof of a fallicy.
I think for myself all the time, thank you. And I do have an open mind. Unlike many others, I do not believe just what my parents told me or my preacher told me. I believe what I have studied and found to be true. My mind is open. Yours is not.
Evolutionists conveniently ignore any evidence that could support biblical fact, as well as any "holes" it their theory. They make it seem as if it is scientific fact while the theory actually has facts contrary to it. The Bible, while some may disagree, has never been proven wrong. Even though throughout history, people have tried everything to disprove it, it has overcome.
If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn't each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn't at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don't apply, I am talking physical, not social development.
As you can plainly see, I don't believe in the evolutionary "work-around". I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.
As for the dinosaur bones, they weren't planted to confuse mankind. That is not God's way. Besides, that would border on the dishonest, and God cannot lie. And since (if you take into account Biblical and secular histories) the earth is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old, evolution and guided evolution doesn't work. Also there would not have been millions of years for dinosaurs to exist before man. So various day-age theories about the 7 days of creation don't fit. So what's left? Dinosaurs had to have co-existed with man. In the book of Job, two creatures are described that perfectly fit with a land-based dinosaur and a dragon-like, fire-breathing, sea monster (dinosaur). Plus, there are ancient drawings in caves in the Grand Canyon that depicts men and dinosaur-like beings together. As far as I know, these races of people did not draw things that they did not see. Where did they all go? Our scientists and archaeologists have claimed that only a global disaster could have wiped out so many of these creatures. Gee, isn't the great flood a global disaster?
Anyway, I could go on for hours, but since by now, most of you are flaming mad or getting bored with this post, I will stop. If you are interested in trying to find out more about any of this, then check out this site. Dr. Bert Thompson is a brilliant man who has devoted most of his life to the study of scientific "fact" versus Biblical "fact".
Perhaps a better use for this type of overlaying technology would be Peril sensitive circuits. Whenever you are about to see something that you will not like or that will distress you, they go black so that you cannot see the offending vision. (or anything else).
I also bought my wife a diamond. She does not care much for jewelry, and she would have been happy with a small conservative diamond ring. That is fine, but I wanted to do more, so I got her a really nice ring with a big rock on it. I think that the ring sometimes helps women to "see" how important they are. After all, if you are willing to spend that much money on something as useless as jewelry, just because you love her, then...
Besides I like it when people see her ring and their eyes bug out or they comment on how nice it is. (I am sure she doesn't mind either)
Yes, diamond engagement rings may be a brilliant marketing strategy for the Cartel, but it is a strategy that has worked. Deep down we all judge ourselves based on other people. If we had talked about it, my wife would have been fine with another type of stone, or a ring without a stone, but deep down she would not have been as content as she was "with" the ring.
Ok, then. If that is the case then why would you expect him to show any logic in his spending habits. If the only reason that he is rich is because he was a lucky sob with a silver spoon in his mouth, then who would fault him for spending it on $200 screwdrivers or whatever his whims tell him.
Either way, whether he earned his money or it was handed to him (BS), its his to spend/waste as he sees fit.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sharp site has more information. It does not use Lenticulars, but a latent parallax barrier to discriminate between vision for each eye. The barrier is latent because it polarizes the light differently for each eye. In 2D mode, this polarization is invisible to the naked eye, so you get a regular, full resolution, 2D display. If you add a 3D polarizing screen to the monitor, and have it aligned within 1 degree of its true allignment, then this screen will discriminate between the two images, and effectively create 2 windows in space. One for the left eye, and one for the right. They have improved previous attempts at a 2D/3D display. In previous versions, it was the parallax barrier that you had to place on the monitor and allign properly. Typical constraints on the alignment were about 5 arc seconds. That is about 700 times more precise than the 1% constraint. So this makes it useable for most people. I guess you can just keep adjusting the polarizing screen until you get the correct image.
According to Sharp, there will be a "sweet-spot" where you can see proper 3D. If you are outside of this area, the image will not display correctly and you would not get a 3D view. I don't know how large/small this sweet spot is, though. They are hoping for a system in the future that would allow many people to crowd around a display and see the same image. But not yet.
Plasma is flat screen too, but in the article at Sharp, the specify that it is a LCD screen.
So having no sense of time goes hand in hand with having no depth perception? No wonder I keep bumping into walls when I am late for work.
There may be alot to gain from stem cell research, but the problem, as has already been stated, is the taking of life to obtain those cells. What we are really talking about here is the same as the abortion issue. Where does life begin? Pro-Choice and stem cell advocates would like to set the definition of life to birth (or perhaps later) so that they can do these things without it being considered Murder.
Stem Cell Researchers don't want to have to think about the morality of what they are doing, because they see the great potential in the research. That is understandable. I personally believe that life starts when you have a fertalized egg. I think that stem cell research should not be ruled out. But we need a good and morally un-controversial method of obtaining them. That should be our first priority. Once we have that, we don't have to worry about the killing babies issue.
Right, plus the metal used for the hull was not as durable as it could have been for the times.
The problem with broadband content on the net is that not enough of the population have broadband. Most of the population are content with their 56K connections. They don't see the need for broadband because there is not enough content out there that needs it. IMO, this is a big step forward. It is true that there may not be tons of people who log on just to download this movie, but some will. And perhaps in a month or two, there will be more movies available. Once there is content that you have to have broadband to access, there will be more people who will decide to go with broadband, and then there will be a bigger thrust for broadband content. It all starts with one company willing to put it on the line like this.
Another note: I saw a few months ago on Silicon Spin (TechTV) a segment on broadband. The conclusion of the interviews is basically what I have in the above paragraph. Another thing that they pointed out was that current DSL and Cable modem shouldn't really be considered broadband. The bitrate just isn't high enough to easily allow you to view streaming high resolution movies yet. So, it may take you a while to download this move, or maybe they need to be offered at lower resolution for a while. But other broadband options may be on the way, such as VDSL (16 Mbps Up, 52 Mbps Down) may begin to spread faster if we have such internet broadband content available.
I think that the award was only for someone to get linux running on an un-modified x-box. These are still modified.
I could be wrong, but I remember reading that somewhere.
Would this work for people who cannot tan naturally? I have never been able to tan, I just burn or get freckles. It would be nice if this would work for people like me.
Well, I was intentionally simplifying the issue. You are right, and there is alot of complexities that I didn't address in the workplace. What I am saying is that it ultimately boils down to this. I am the employee, I am selling you a service. You are the employer, you are buying the service. If the deal is not suitable to either one of us, then we can terminate the employment. We each have stipulations for the deal to be acceptible. I may charge you 50,000 a year. You may say, "ok, but I can monitor your computer use." If you don't feel I am worth that, or I don't want you looking over my shoulder, then You don't offer, or I don't accept.
Well, this creates another problem, because it infringes on the rights of the person in the bathroom. The employer has the right to do any of these things as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of the employee. I don't believe you have the right to use the company telephone to make personal phone calls, so the company could monitor it.
In reality, most companies would never stoops to such tactics.
In business, there are employers and employees. When you work for a company, you have to do what the company tells you to or the company will decide to do without you. However, if the company tells you to do something that you will not do, or puts you in a situation that you find unfair, or stressful, or whatever, then you will decide that you can to quit and find another company more suitable for you.
The same is true of a patient/doctor relationship. In this case you are the employer and he is the employee. You are paying him for a service. You could specify that he must allow you to monitor everything that he does on his computer while you are paying him. He would laugh at you and say "No." He can do that because he makes enough money from other patients that he doesn't need you. If he needed your money enough, he would decide that he could live with that situation, and would allow you to do it.
Now you couldn't do it without his knowledge or consent, simply because the computer belongs to him, not you. In a company environment, the equipment belongs to the company. So they can install whatever they want on their machines, and monitor you on the computer,telephone,or even by camera.
A better analogy than a doctor might be a plumber or electrician that you hire to come to your house and fix your plumbing or equipment. You could specify that you are going to monitor everything that they do while in your house. This is your right because the equipment belongs to you, the employer.
What you say is basically true. The company can only afford their assets because of the work of the employees.
But it is still the company's assets, not yours. I know that some companies are employee owned, and that you may have stock options or whatever, but the assets still belong to the company, which is controlled by whatever leading body your company may have, President, Board, Dictator, whatever. Yes, the work that you do gives them a product/service to sell so that they can afford to buy computers and internet services, but if you don't abide by company policy regarding these issues, or other ones, then they will let you go, and find someone else that will. Then you are no longer putting money in their pocket. Now if you are so indespensible that they can't get rid of you, then more power to you. Email all you want. But for the rest of us, it comes down to one simple point, The company is paying you for your work. This does not include lunch, going to the bathroom, or sending email. Luckily, most companies understand that people aren't machines, and they have to have time to go to the bathroom, take mental breaks, and interact with each other on non-work topics. It all depends on your company. I work for a company that doesn't mind personal email, telephone calls, or internet surfing, as long as you don't do it too much. If you have to send personal email from work, I suggest you make sure that you work for a company that allows that.
I really wish I could spell. Of course I meant live bait.
We actually have one of the damn live bate vending machines outside of Wal-Mart.
Craziest thing I ever saw.
A friend of mine lives near a florist that has a fresh flowers vending machine, so that you can get flowers 24/7. And we all know how important that is.
Definately try to recycle any old hardware if it works. My wife is a special ed teacher, and always trying to find people to donate old machines. It is amazing how many individuals and companies will just trash an old system before looking to see if anyone else wants to use it.
I agree that love is not a diamond ring. What I said does not apply to everyone. My wife told me not to get her a big ring. It just depends on your perspective. I like going to nice dinners and spending money (even if i don't have it). Other people think that spending a hundred bucks on a dinner when 30 will do at an Olive Garden is stupid. Just depends on what you like. In my situation, I am glad I got her the ring. In yours, you are glad to still have money in your pocket. Everyone is happy.
i disagree. I choose to read the Bible, which I believe is infallable, and to discern what I believe as truth from there. I agree that it would have been equally possible for God to have used evolution, because I believe that he is all powerful. I don't think that either one is more bueatiful, interesting, or godly than the other. I simply believe what I believe because that is what the Bible says.
To be more clear, God could have created the universe however he saw fit, whether it was 7 days, evolution over millenia, or a big sneeze. But God cannot lie, God inspired Genesis, and Genesis does not agree with directed evolution.
I know that micro-evolution is a proven fact, and have no problem with it. That is why I specifically addressed macro-evolution. The day-age theory of the creation is fairly popular. I don't believe that. I believe that the world was created in 7 actual days. And I think that you can discern the age of the earth, and therefore the universe, via secular and biblical histories.
You are right. My belief is a theory. I personally see it as a fact, but would not try and force this belief on anyone else. My belief is commonly viewed as a theory. Evolution is given lip service as being a theory, then convieniently portrayed as a fact in schools and media. I object to that.
After this post, I will also resign from this discussion, but I feel that your points should be addressed. I appreciate that you did not resort to futile name calling like many of the anti-creationists do.
Being a Christian, and choosing to find my own answers to what is truth and what is not, I have studied and thought on many of your points. Here I will address the points that you have made.
If God knows our future, and he is omnipotent, then that means that we are on a set course. If we had free will and were able to do what we wanted, then God wouldn't know what was going to happen next.
Not necessarily. God created space and time. Therefore he exists outside of conventional space and time. If you will try to think 4 dimensionally for a minute: A being existing outside of the bounds of our timeline could potentially see all points in that line simultaneously. I know that it is hard for us (being inside the bounds of this line) to comprehend that, but I think that it stands to reason that many things concerning a supreme being are going to be hard, if not impossible for us to visualize or comprehend. We have no way of knowing what would and wouldn't be possible if we were outside of the boundaries of time. Therefore, I believe that it is possible that God can know our futures without taking a direct hand in forcing the outcome. Does that mean that our futures are set and we can't control our own lives? I don't think so. We control our destiny, we make the choices, and we perform our own actions. God just has a knowledge of what the end result will be. This topic is one of the things that we Christians have to eventually admit that only Faith in the truth of the Bible can resolve at this time. Just like other incomprehensible subjects such as the Godhead, Infinity, Perfect Justice, and Providence.
Genesis 1:1 If God had to creat the heavens, where was he before? Biblical scholars determined that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C. thereby making the earth about six thousand years old.
I believe that I answered this point in my previous paragraph. God exists outside conventional space and time.
Genesis 1:16 there are not 2 great lights. The light coming from the moon is a reflection of the light coming from the sun.
There is a lot that literary tools used in Genesis. I believe this to be one of them. From an observation point of view, it is two great lights.
Genesis 1:29 God gave us all the plants on the Earth to eat. So why are there poisonous plants that will kill us?
I don't think that this passage says that we are to eat every plant on earth. It says that we are given every "herb bearing seed." He also gave us all of the animals to have dominion over, but then Jewish law specifies which animals not to touch because they are "unclean."
Genesis 2:17 Adam ate from the tree and did not die.
When Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he did die. It was not an instantaneous death, but he died spiritually at that point, and I think that it can be argued that he began to die physically. Before this act, he was able to eat of the tree of Life. There was no indication that Adam or Eve were ever aging or going to die. After this act, they were banished from the garden, and the presence of the Tree of Life. After this, they began to grow old and die.
Genesis 7:11-12 Noah was 600 years old?!?! What ever. And are we to believe that the world was popluated from only Noah, his wife and his sons and their wives? geneticly impossible to stem out into asian, blacks, whites, hispanic etc from just the original 'arabic' race in the last 4000 years(the floods are to believed to have happened aroung 2007 B.C.)(arabic term used because this all happened in the middle east).
Yes he was. And there were older. Methuselah lived to be 969 years old. That is almost 1000 years! By a interesting coincidence, by my observations, that would mean he died in the year of the flood, so he must not have been faithful. Or he died before the flood. Anyway, at that time, people could live that long. After the flood, the average lifespan of man was shortened. I believe that it was shortened again at the tower of Babel. This also ties in with the physics behind the flood. When God created the earth, it says that he separated the waters, and the space between he called the heavens. One body of water above, and one below. So apparently there was a sphere of water surrounding the earth. It has been speculated that this body of water would act as a barrier to harmful radiation from the sun and other cosmic bodies. It is safe to assume that with Adam and Eve, the genetic structure was perfect. No mutations. This is why it was possible for there to be inbreeding at the beginning without adverse effects. Remember, Cain and Seth had to have wives too. Stands to reason that it was their sister. Who else? Anyway, after the flood, this protective barrier would be eliminated, allowing harmful radiation to affect us. Remember this is just speculation. I don't know if God took a direct hand in limiting the lifespan of man, or if he allowed nature to do it for him. But I think that either is plausible.
Genesis 6:15 There would have been about only 1.5 cubic feet of space for every pair of animals on the Ark for the estimated 4 million+ different species of animals. Since you don't believe in evolution, that would mean everything(and everyday we are finding different species)(hmm, what about the fish? If God wanted to kill all the animals of the world, why would he leave the fish 7:14 no metion of fish, there is only mention of animals that walk the ground, and the birds in the air.)
It wasn't God's purpose to kill all the animals. He wanted to wipe Man from the face of the earth. The animals had done nothing wrong, not being able to sin or know right from wrong. Man was the problem. So he would have no reason to kill the fish or sea mammals. And it would have been silly to put them in the ark. Now about the animals. You are probably overestimating the space if your calculations are correct. (I am assuming that they may be, and not checking) Noah only took some animals in pairs. Some of the animals, I believe the ones at the time deemed "unclean," were taken in groups of 7. So they probably had much less space. I don't know how they fit. And if you take into account that Noah may have had some dinosaurs on board, this might further complicate matters. But remember that Noah did not have to take fully grown animals into the ark. They could have been babies, or even eggs at the time. God could have made sure (through divine intervention) that no eggs would break and that all animals would survive the journey. Maybe they didn't even have to eat during that time. I can see how this could have been plausible, so chalk another one up to Faith.
Genesis 7:19-20 It would have to rain more than 750 feet per day for 40 days/night to cover the world so that the mountains would be covered by a depth of 15 cubits (about 20 feet) There is no evidence of such a massive flood. Wouldn't there be evidence if the whole world was covered in water for 150 days?
Two things here. One is my comment from above. The water sphere around the earth. This was the time that God collapsed that sphere. This would account for quite a bit of water. Also, it says that water came from within the ground. So all of the water did not have to come from above. Was all of the water there before the flood? Maybe not. God could have intervened and added plenty of water. He could also have taken it away after the flood. So the flood is possible. Plus I have seen lots of scientific evidence that points to a global flood. Fossilized remains of fish on the tops of mountains and the like. So the flood was definitely possible.
Genesis 32:25-30 If God was so powerful why could he not win in a wrestling match with Jacob, a mortal?
Well he could have. That must not have been what he was trying to do.
Exodus 12:37 There was 600,000 men on foot, not including women, children, and the elderly. Round up to 1.5 million total. The total population for Egypt at the time was estimated at less than 2 million. Doesn't add up.
I disagree. I think that it does add up. Joseph died, and the Pharaoh, who had liked him and given the land of Goshen (the most fertile land around) to his family, had died. The new Pharaoh had no reason to sustain these people in his country. So he enslaved them. They grew and multiplied while they were enslaved. They were abused and ruled with iron fists. The Egyptians made sure that they would not rise up. Maybe God had a hand in their complacency as well. The Pharaoh was afraid of the Israelites. God could have influenced this nation to grow and multiply quickly.
Leviticus 14:49-53 Sounds like witch craft.
So? Lots of the laws back then were similar. What about spreading lambs blood on the door posts to avoid the angel of death in Exodus. No matter what it sounds like. This was God's law at the time.
1 Timothy 6:10 Money is not the root of all evil. Lots of poor people do evil things. Lots of rich people do good things.
Yes they do, but this verse is pointing out that human greed is the root of all evil. Not necessarily that every evil action is caused directly by greed.
Matthew 26:52 says all who take the sword, perish by the sword. But Jesus took a sword in Matthew 10:34
No he didn't. He is speaking metaphorically of a sword. Not taking one up to use in battle. However, he did, in essence "Die by the sword", which I take to mean die by violence.
MK 11:12-14, 20-21 Wouldn't it have been better to make the fig tree produce, than to curse it and kill it?
It depends greatly on what is trying to be accomplished. Jesus cursed the tree as another proof of who he was and the power of God (Verse 22).
One final note. The Bible cannot be logically explained without including the divine power of God and the supernatural. Everything in the Bible may not be physically possible today. I have yet to discover a fallacy that cannot be explained with thorough study. This fact, as well as my observations of the world around me, make me positive that there is a God. And the Bible is his message to us. This helps me to have Faith in both him and his word. What inspires the Faith of the evolutionist?
If you have ever bothered to actually read the Bible, then you would know that "Christmas" is never mentioned. Christmas is something that most Christians have adopted as a holiday over several generations. Jesus was not born on Dec 25? You are right. I never have claimed that he was. I have no doubt that many Christians think that he was, sadly because people don't take the time to understand what they claim to "believe". I also don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. Yes I sing the songs, and all that, but not in celebration of the Birth of Jesus. Christmas is a time to be with family and friends, and buy lots and lots of stuff. :)
Now a note on Free will. I believe 100% in free will. We are "free moral agents" who chose our own path. That is the purpose of life. I do not hold to the Calvinistic view that we are predestined to either be in heaven or hell. This is determined by 2 things: the grace of God, and our actions. Grace alone cannot get us there. And we cannot "earn" our way by just our actions. You are incorrect when you say that "All" major religions believe in predestination. They do not. Many do, but not all. God, being omnipotent, knows our futures, but he doesn't determine them.
The Bible is not just a bunch of stories handed down. People say that who haven't read and do not believe the Bible. That makes sense. By your comment on Christmas, I know that you have not read the Bible, or if you have, you didn't pay much attention to its content. If you wish to tell me of a case where the Bible has been proven wrong, go ahead, and I will comment on that. But Christmas, not being in the Bible at all, is not proof of a fallicy.
I think for myself all the time, thank you. And I do have an open mind. Unlike many others, I do not believe just what my parents told me or my preacher told me. I believe what I have studied and found to be true. My mind is open. Yours is not.
Evolutionists conveniently ignore any evidence that could support biblical fact, as well as any "holes" it their theory. They make it seem as if it is scientific fact while the theory actually has facts contrary to it. The Bible, while some may disagree, has never been proven wrong. Even though throughout history, people have tried everything to disprove it, it has overcome.
If Evolution is possible, then where are the fossils from all of the missing links between evolutionary stages? That would be proof. Where is it? Am I to believe that every evolutionary stage between Entity A and Entity B died without leaving a single fossil? And if macro-evolution is possible, then why isn't each Entity on the face of our super-ancient planet it its own stage of evolution. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of humanity is on the same level of evolution? Shouldn't at least some of us be a few millennia behind others? And primitive cultures don't apply, I am talking physical, not social development.
As you can plainly see, I don't believe in the evolutionary "work-around". I think that the theory exists simply because many of us need to find a way to disprove the Bible, so that they can sleep soundly at night thinking that they will not have to answer for their actions to some supreme being.
As for the dinosaur bones, they weren't planted to confuse mankind. That is not God's way. Besides, that would border on the dishonest, and God cannot lie. And since (if you take into account Biblical and secular histories) the earth is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old, evolution and guided evolution doesn't work. Also there would not have been millions of years for dinosaurs to exist before man. So various day-age theories about the 7 days of creation don't fit. So what's left? Dinosaurs had to have co-existed with man. In the book of Job, two creatures are described that perfectly fit with a land-based dinosaur and a dragon-like, fire-breathing, sea monster (dinosaur). Plus, there are ancient drawings in caves in the Grand Canyon that depicts men and dinosaur-like beings together. As far as I know, these races of people did not draw things that they did not see. Where did they all go? Our scientists and archaeologists have claimed that only a global disaster could have wiped out so many of these creatures. Gee, isn't the great flood a global disaster?
Anyway, I could go on for hours, but since by now, most of you are flaming mad or getting bored with this post, I will stop. If you are interested in trying to find out more about any of this, then check out this site. Dr. Bert Thompson is a brilliant man who has devoted most of his life to the study of scientific "fact" versus Biblical "fact".
Perhaps a better use for this type of overlaying technology would be Peril sensitive circuits. Whenever you are about to see something that you will not like or that will distress you, they go black so that you cannot see the offending vision. (or anything else).
I also bought my wife a diamond. She does not care much for jewelry, and she would have been happy with a small conservative diamond ring. That is fine, but I wanted to do more, so I got her a really nice ring with a big rock on it. I think that the ring sometimes helps women to "see" how important they are. After all, if you are willing to spend that much money on something as useless as jewelry, just because you love her, then...
Besides I like it when people see her ring and their eyes bug out or they comment on how nice it is. (I am sure she doesn't mind either)
Yes, diamond engagement rings may be a brilliant marketing strategy for the Cartel, but it is a strategy that has worked. Deep down we all judge ourselves based on other people. If we had talked about it, my wife would have been fine with another type of stone, or a ring without a stone, but deep down she would not have been as content as she was "with" the ring.
Conformity is a fact of life.
Ok, then. If that is the case then why would you expect him to show any logic in his spending habits. If the only reason that he is rich is because he was a lucky sob with a silver spoon in his mouth, then who would fault him for spending it on $200 screwdrivers or whatever his whims tell him.
Either way, whether he earned his money or it was handed to him (BS), its his to spend/waste as he sees fit.