The damage certainly won't be repaired by people who refuse to imagine how it could be. It is most definitely reparable.
The damage is not even obvious. There are already lines and paths, and even what appears to be an airstrip, and the outline section has to be pointed out to tell the difference.
Also, the hummingbird itself wasn't damaged, just the land next to it. It's like cutting down a single tree next to Mt Rushmore.
I really don't see the problem. It seems super easy to fix. I wouldn't issue an apology either. WAY overdramatized story.
[citation needed]. Dictionaries observe the way language has been used in the past, but do not codify the limitations by which language may only be used. The way words enter the dictionary is generally by tally that lexicographers keep in observing past use of words out in the wild, so to speak. Grammar texts and dictionaries are merely descriptive of the most common ways the ordinary commoner has used the word in order of popularity -- it does not prescribe the ways in which a word may only be employed.
Incidentally, a few weeks ago I placed an order for this Amazon listing for Eleventy-billion tons of snow, deliverable directly to one of our lakes. There was a 4.49 shipping charge, so I figure I could do my part to help out with that much investment, at least. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IISFL64/ref=pe_385040_30332190_TE_3p_dp_1
I'm a resident of WF (and had to dig up a years-old account to login although I do read frequently but never comment much, so apologies for the cheap-shot url username).. The new water is supposedly on, but I can't tell a difference.
It's strange to me that there is all that much of a fuss with the locals, considering the fact that the process prior to this required treatment of said wastewater and greywater that was eventually let back out into the ordinary water table, became grimy with exposed air and otherwise ground contaminants, and was just filtered back to the city again through the lakes all over again anyway.
When suggested that there was no telling how many people had drowned in the lakes, how many cars had been run off the road into them and rusted over and still leaking gasoline and oil, and not to mention how many dead animals and super-toxic algae were present in the lake in the first place that we were "drinking" before this new filtered idea came about, they tend to clam up (perhaps from being grossed out by my description).
The city put out a lovely and sciencey YouTube video (which is now a year old), interviewing local chemists and otherwise credible local water experts who examined the setup and offered their input on it, here, for those interested in some of the more technical aspects.
I've tried to link to it in most discussions I find online, but even still there are only 2790 views currently, out of a city of 100k+ pop, which is perhaps indicative of how terrible of a PR team our city does genuinely have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MKrU1yi5Yc
Possibly the biggest local water controversy aside from the "poo-water" issue is how our city operates a water park, of all things. Supposedly it creates more profit that investment and is using outside, trucked-in water that is filtered and recirculated within its own closed system, but that doesn't stop torrents of naysayers leaping at every opportunity to inject it as shitstorm material, instantly derailing any city-admin discussion.
"all but ___" is a common idiom used to mean "almost entirely ___ but not quite".
Welcome back, ESL, it does not mean that and is commonly misused to mean that. If every started using "their" to mean "they are" would it eventually become correct? And it's not an idiom, either.
When you use the phrase "all but", think of "everything except" -- if something is "everything except useless", it means it isn't useless. Your sentence therefore means that:
scratching "...quickly makes the colour screen useful for viewing album art and photos..."
So, scratched screen = [everything (except useless)]
Replace "all but" with "nothing short of" and you've got it.
scratching "...quickly makes the colour screen nothing short of useless for viewing album art and photos..."
That's like something being positively similar or certainly possible -- neither of which are actual answers to a question. Is she pregnant? She is certifiably maybe! What is irrefutable about a similarity?
Has there ever been ANY proof at all that all this happened by some supreme god.
The Bible is evidence. You may choose not to believe it to be true, but it would be likewise foolish for me to assert that (while untrue) since the evidence claimed by proof from the historical record is written by a bunch of evolutionists that it is therefore flawed since it doesn't take the bible into account. This is the same argument from scientists against using biblical evidence. The exponentially high number of people who assert it as so is also entered as evidence -- particularly those with bio/chemi/genetic education.
Because the(y) believe in ideas blindly.
Firstly, as I mentioned "fundamentalists" exist across the board, not just in religion. How is that only the religious sort are blind followers? Fundamentalism is simply the claim that certain elements of something are, as far anyone is capable of comprehension, true or perceptively/verifiably correct. The belief that organisms and creatures mutated and outlived other mutations are fundamentals of macroevolution, yet there exists a distinction that spiritual matters are unprovable and highly improbable (by science) and that certain scientific matters like evolution are likewise unprovable by the spiritually aware. The fact that science classrooms refuse to allow ground for ID discussion is borderline dictatorship thanso democracy, since they know they're right. Religious classes most definately welcome evolution discussion, knowing they are right. Why is it that we allow discussion, but science doesn't? This is a classroom for learning, right? Merely stating "because of the overwhelming evidence" as an excuse is allowing students to make that assertion on their own (learning), it is predeclaring the solution to an equation before it is given a chance to be solved, like refusing to allow a control situation in an experiment. Show us in the classroom why, according to this absurdly abundant evidence, ID is implausible, and allow the students to make their own assertions. Math teacher don't merely require students to know that "two and two equal four" (a fundamental) but show why it is so. Equal representation in the classroom between Evo and ID make sound logical sense, since evolution (according to science) will win anyway.
I was blinded by science's rationale (no 80's pop references intended) until I was a junior in college (1999), before I knew Christ. Being saved changes a person drastically and feels like new sensory perceptions have been awakened. I can't possibly imagine living without it now, likened a bit to Neo being unable to see the code anymore. Having known the ability to see the code, and no longer being able to see it would be very frustrating, as well as disheartened for those who had never seen it and continue to believe they live in one perceptual world since it's the only thing they can compare it to. On a self-propelled rational-reasoning level, you will call your beliefs, ones you thought were immutable, into question after having been saved, as I was the most hard-nosed blue-pill atheistic science freak I knew and vehemently against how those religious nuts could possibly think science wasn't the answer.
Scientists as well as non-scientists witness evolution every day. Every time a germ mutates to offset our attempts to destroy a germ we witness evolution.
What you seem to fail to take into account is whether the germ is programmed to adapt. Adaptation is not (macro-)evolution. That's like saying if a rabbit darts in front of my car, I make a minor course correction and magically become a new species.
Every time a fetus is created from a couple of cells we can witness evolution of the fetus.
Except that an intelligence made that happen. You just proved ID, not evolution.
We can even direct evolution in our science labs and create mutants by changing environment of their habitat or by playing directly with their genes.
Again, ID, not evolution. To see the fruit of these experiments, we are required to orchestrate the circumstances we have yet to witness in nature. All too frequently I see the words "create" and "direct" in reference to proving evolution is possible -- without the light coming on. They all must have had the capability in the first place to adapt, a pre-written code. Emphasis on written, as in, requiring a writer. We see Mac OS X 10.3 turning into 10.4, but fail to suspect that it might have happened by itself over billions of years.
It is difficult to imagine that a species could change because it wanted to or was simply adapting to terrain or environment. Environment changes drastically in 1 billion years, to extreme ups and downs within a year. By the time a successful alteration is made a billion years later, the scenario for which it was manifested has long past. Another reason that selfwill-based changes are unlikely is simply the state of humans -- no claws, fangs, wings, exoskeleton, etc. What guy never wanted one or all of these? I could frankly go for an exoskeleton and the ability to fly. It sure would help me to escape plane ticket prices. Despite any amount of jumping and flapping that me and my descendants attempt, I nary suspect any of us will sprout wings because we wanted to mutate.
ID attempts to address the quandry of "how did they know to do that?" changes that only seem possible if someone had set them purposely to interact with each other. If random mutations suddenly just "caught on" by process of elimination and the survivor made more of himself, how did he know to stop mutating and that this was the most suitable mutation to reproduce? How did his progenitors know they needed to mutate in order to survive? The "tendency of an object in motion to stay in motion" is too strong to stop just because it happened to.
In observing the comments on this article, it is amazing to me that so-called scientists are so red-in-the-face-p'd-off-so-let's-nuke-the-snot-out -of-those-ID-freaks-angry about ID. So, we can declare that everyone must accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, but must martyr all ID'ers for having such an impossibly absurd idea. Loads of sense there, Plato.
It was my understanding that science can never solidly declare any given concept, despite how well tested, as the Truth, because doing so would make them biased since science is always objective. By nature, science cannot refuse to address any given position because doing so would be unscience-like. The obviousness that ID is incorrect by evo'ers is the identical obviousness that evolution is incorrect to ID'ers.
It is also baffling as to why "fundamentalist" is such a dirty word. An accountant trusts that the fundamentals of math will remain correct and utilizes them daily, making him/her a math fundie. An acrobat understands fundamentals of how his body works and the balance it is capable of, making him a bio-fundie. A child relies on the ball to bounce in order to continue having fun, so is therefore a reaction-fundie. A Christian trusts that Christ's sacrifice pays the balance of all his/her sin ever comitted past and future to reconcile with God's tally, so he/she is a religious fundie, but is ridiculed. How is this different?
When will it be "Parents irresponsible with how they raised their child leads to deaths"?
This statement is only a very slight variation on putting the blame on Wal-Mart or the video game industry -- away from the actual perpetrator of the crime. Otherwise I would agree with you. The degree of displacement of blame might seem more legitimate from your perspective, but in a your-word-against-theirs stalemate argument, they thought the blame could just as easily be placed on the producers.
A crime is committed by an individual who rationalizes that (a) the crime is worth the punishment, (b) the crime will result in no punishment (unenforced), (c) it is arguably "un-press-chargeable" (conditional legality), (d) this is a perfectly legitimate action (legal), or something else entirely.
In each case, it is a decision made by the individual -- regardless of upbringing. Even if you were brought up in a home where police were labeled enemies and your parents had you practice stabbing a stuffed policeman for the eventual "upcoming test", it is still completely your decision regardless of how much thought you put into it beforehand (whether by impulse or premeditated).
The evidence that will eventually lead the industry to win the case is the umpteen skatrillion other teens who did not pursue this action after playing the game. If tried as an adult, the parents ought to (IMO) have zero liability unless they had prior knowledge that the situation was a possibility and did nothing about it (negligence).
You will only be able to try if you have an immortal soul, which is what you were trying to prove. You can't prove the existence of something by assuming it's existence.
It's not an assumption, nor has the proof's "experiment" (although quite risky) been completed yet. You're assuming the "hypothesis" has been already proven, yet strangely enough, you're not dead yet. You will find it is true, after death. Not maybe. That is the only proof, this side of the chasm, that I can offer.
You are reading it.// Reading what? Slashdot? Slashdot is proof of God?
If you recall, your argument was that God should find you if He's so great 'n' grand. However, the seed seems to have fallen to the wayside. (Matthew 13:3-23)
You haven't shown that these things actually happened. Why do you believe they did? The Bible says so? How do you know the Bible is accurate?
So, you suppose that manuscripts passed down from ages past, delicately kept and translated so all may read, verified by historians and scholars alike and confirmed, proven then by the times thereof, are now false?
Do you also question the existence of Abraham Lincoln? You have neither seen nor heard him personally, but thousands of people will testify to his existence and claim he was the president. Historians verify and confirm, scholars agree. There is no way to physically prove, aside from texts, art, and word of mouth that Abraham Lincoln truly existed and was president. Such is the same for Jesus, except the proof of the 'hypothesis' above.
If I were to tell you that "if you put a piece of meat in the fire, it will sizzle, some of it turned into carbons, and become very tough," you might say, if you had never observed nor heard such a thing, that such a thing is absurd. There would be no way for me to prove it but to show you, or for you to try it yourself, but having it shown to me gives me faith that the process is true.
God reveals truth personally to those who earnestly and honestly seek answers, not just hoping to get a clue. If you really want to risk it, feel free to completely ignore my suggestion. Otherwise, some day soon, where no one can see you or hear, silently pray in all honesty of seeking for answers. After doing so, be patient and heed your circustances. God works on His own timescale, not yours. If nothing happens, then no big deal. No one knew about it, and no one ever will as long as you don't tell them. No embarassment, no shunning, and you've proved your measely point. Prove me wrong once and for all. Refuse and you have conceded the arguement.
When we both have died, I will try and send you a message enscribed, "Well?"
God is smarter than I am. Let Him try to find me.
You are reading it.
Trust has to be earned.
What more do you want than haven taken a ton of lashes while tied to a post in full view of crowds, hands and feet NAILED to a wooden post (have you ever taken a nail and pounded it into your foot? Not pleasant.), being stabbed in the gut with a spear while hanging there, worn a mockingly-gestured "crown" of thorns tearing into the flesh of your scalp, and finally dying? You come back when you've already experienced these things and we'll talk about earning.
Not in response to David, but to those countering:
It is worrisome how many people demand an explanation as to why something happened, or else demand that someone or something take the blame for it. The problem with 98% of the opposing posts on this Christ thread are because they focus ONLY in the 80 or so years that someone is alive.
How long does a person stay alive?
How long is eternity?
Cancer matters approximately JACK in the scope of eternity. The time that a person had pain 5 billion eons ago grows increasingly insignificant as infinity progresses. The length of time that Person Q was without a father because of that car accident that was "nobody's fault" has approximately ZERO weight compared to the length of time after Person Q buys the farm and is no longer in pain.
Here's the deal, summary of the NT courtesy yours truly, minus the history lesson:
1. Look for Jesus (who IS God, made flesh). (For you programmer types, in relation to Larry Wall's interview, you probably find that by speaking with the Author you can learn more than by just reading the manual.) Why just God, and not Odin, Allah, or Bugs Bunny? God is unique because NONE of the others want you or me, the servant, in his kingdom without earning the way there. God has completely provided the way to paradise, all you have to do is take him up on the offer.
2. When you find Him, trust Him that he knows what to do. You can't earn your way in, and nor can you sin your way out. You're ALREADY out (as is everyone else, Christians included), and by His MERCY are people allowed in. You've already been given the invitation, just RSVP. The Invitation will not expire. (find the mp3 "The Invitation" by Petra). Grace is granting the peace you DON'T deserve, mercy is withholding the destruction you DO.
3. Remember where your trust is, and compare any kind of temporal (short-lived) inconvenience, which ranges from ingrown toenail to severed head, to the scope of infinity. By comparison, all tragedies great and small in the span of a human life matter as much as the penny you just passed on the sidewalk. (and now that I said that, you'll probably remember that every time you see a penny! Ha!)
P.S. "It doesn't matter what you guess what will happen, rather what really DOES happen."
P.P.S. Regarding the "Free Will vs. All Powerful" argument, consider also that God is neither bound by the dimension of time. While you KNOW what will happen at the end of "The Matrix" the characters in the movie still choose of their own will. God COULD make us all robots to obey Him, but what kind of obedience would that really be? Would it not be exponentially greater a feat to have created a free-willed person that CHOSE to obey?
Slashdot Mirror
The damage certainly won't be repaired by people who refuse to imagine how it could be. It is most definitely reparable.
The damage is not even obvious. There are already lines and paths, and even what appears to be an airstrip, and the outline section has to be pointed out to tell the difference.
Also, the hummingbird itself wasn't damaged, just the land next to it. It's like cutting down a single tree next to Mt Rushmore.
I really don't see the problem. It seems super easy to fix. I wouldn't issue an apology either. WAY overdramatized story.
I was under the impression this was a joke post about Zuckerberg proposing to create a grand clone army..
[citation needed]. Dictionaries observe the way language has been used in the past, but do not codify the limitations by which language may only be used. The way words enter the dictionary is generally by tally that lexicographers keep in observing past use of words out in the wild, so to speak. Grammar texts and dictionaries are merely descriptive of the most common ways the ordinary commoner has used the word in order of popularity -- it does not prescribe the ways in which a word may only be employed.
Incidentally, a few weeks ago I placed an order for this Amazon listing for Eleventy-billion tons of snow, deliverable directly to one of our lakes.
There was a 4.49 shipping charge, so I figure I could do my part to help out with that much investment, at least.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IISFL64/ref=pe_385040_30332190_TE_3p_dp_1
I'm a resident of WF (and had to dig up a years-old account to login although I do read frequently but never comment much, so apologies for the cheap-shot url username).. The new water is supposedly on, but I can't tell a difference.
It's strange to me that there is all that much of a fuss with the locals, considering the fact that the process prior to this required treatment of said wastewater and greywater that was eventually let back out into the ordinary water table, became grimy with exposed air and otherwise ground contaminants, and was just filtered back to the city again through the lakes all over again anyway.
When suggested that there was no telling how many people had drowned in the lakes, how many cars had been run off the road into them and rusted over and still leaking gasoline and oil, and not to mention how many dead animals and super-toxic algae were present in the lake in the first place that we were "drinking" before this new filtered idea came about, they tend to clam up (perhaps from being grossed out by my description).
The city put out a lovely and sciencey YouTube video (which is now a year old), interviewing local chemists and otherwise credible local water experts who examined the setup and offered their input on it, here, for those interested in some of the more technical aspects. I've tried to link to it in most discussions I find online, but even still there are only 2790 views currently, out of a city of 100k+ pop, which is perhaps indicative of how terrible of a PR team our city does genuinely have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MKrU1yi5Yc
Possibly the biggest local water controversy aside from the "poo-water" issue is how our city operates a water park, of all things. Supposedly it creates more profit that investment and is using outside, trucked-in water that is filtered and recirculated within its own closed system, but that doesn't stop torrents of naysayers leaping at every opportunity to inject it as shitstorm material, instantly derailing any city-admin discussion.
I was under the impression 'prior art' referred to an actual already-existing patent, not that it existed somewhere else before.
Yet another shining example of a news story that quite possibly REQUIRES oodles of photographs, and yet shows absolutely none. double-u tee eff.
"all but ___" is a common idiom used to mean "almost entirely ___ but not quite".
Welcome back, ESL, it does not mean that and is commonly misused to mean that. If every started using "their" to mean "they are" would it eventually become correct? And it's not an idiom, either.
all but useless
When you use the phrase "all but", think of "everything except" -- if something is "everything except useless", it means it isn't useless. Your sentence therefore means that:
scratching "...quickly makes the colour screen useful for viewing album art and photos..."
So, scratched screen = [everything (except useless)]
Replace "all but" with "nothing short of" and you've got it.
scratching "...quickly makes the colour screen nothing short of useless for viewing album art and photos..."
That's like something being positively similar or certainly possible -- neither of which are actual answers to a question. Is she pregnant? She is certifiably maybe! What is irrefutable about a similarity?
I suspect that mentioning Pastafarianism has become the new "someone talking about nazis" officially-finished conversation ender.
Has there ever been ANY proof at all that all this happened by some supreme god.
The Bible is evidence. You may choose not to believe it to be true, but it would be likewise foolish for me to assert that (while untrue) since the evidence claimed by proof from the historical record is written by a bunch of evolutionists that it is therefore flawed since it doesn't take the bible into account. This is the same argument from scientists against using biblical evidence. The exponentially high number of people who assert it as so is also entered as evidence -- particularly those with bio/chemi/genetic education.
Because the(y) believe in ideas blindly.
Firstly, as I mentioned "fundamentalists" exist across the board, not just in religion. How is that only the religious sort are blind followers? Fundamentalism is simply the claim that certain elements of something are, as far anyone is capable of comprehension, true or perceptively/verifiably correct. The belief that organisms and creatures mutated and outlived other mutations are fundamentals of macroevolution, yet there exists a distinction that spiritual matters are unprovable and highly improbable (by science) and that certain scientific matters like evolution are likewise unprovable by the spiritually aware. The fact that science classrooms refuse to allow ground for ID discussion is borderline dictatorship thanso democracy, since they know they're right. Religious classes most definately welcome evolution discussion, knowing they are right. Why is it that we allow discussion, but science doesn't? This is a classroom for learning, right? Merely stating "because of the overwhelming evidence" as an excuse is allowing students to make that assertion on their own (learning), it is predeclaring the solution to an equation before it is given a chance to be solved, like refusing to allow a control situation in an experiment. Show us in the classroom why, according to this absurdly abundant evidence, ID is implausible, and allow the students to make their own assertions. Math teacher don't merely require students to know that "two and two equal four" (a fundamental) but show why it is so. Equal representation in the classroom between Evo and ID make sound logical sense, since evolution (according to science) will win anyway.
I was blinded by science's rationale (no 80's pop references intended) until I was a junior in college (1999), before I knew Christ. Being saved changes a person drastically and feels like new sensory perceptions have been awakened. I can't possibly imagine living without it now, likened a bit to Neo being unable to see the code anymore. Having known the ability to see the code, and no longer being able to see it would be very frustrating, as well as disheartened for those who had never seen it and continue to believe they live in one perceptual world since it's the only thing they can compare it to. On a self-propelled rational-reasoning level, you will call your beliefs, ones you thought were immutable, into question after having been saved, as I was the most hard-nosed blue-pill atheistic science freak I knew and vehemently against how those religious nuts could possibly think science wasn't the answer.
Scientists as well as non-scientists witness evolution every day. Every time a germ mutates to offset our attempts to destroy a germ we witness evolution.
t -of-those-ID-freaks-angry about ID. So, we can declare that everyone must accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, but must martyr all ID'ers for having such an impossibly absurd idea. Loads of sense there, Plato.
What you seem to fail to take into account is whether the germ is programmed to adapt. Adaptation is not (macro-)evolution. That's like saying if a rabbit darts in front of my car, I make a minor course correction and magically become a new species.
Every time a fetus is created from a couple of cells we can witness evolution of the fetus.
Except that an intelligence made that happen. You just proved ID, not evolution.
We can even direct evolution in our science labs and create mutants by changing environment of their habitat or by playing directly with their genes.
Again, ID, not evolution. To see the fruit of these experiments, we are required to orchestrate the circumstances we have yet to witness in nature. All too frequently I see the words "create" and "direct" in reference to proving evolution is possible -- without the light coming on. They all must have had the capability in the first place to adapt, a pre-written code. Emphasis on written, as in, requiring a writer. We see Mac OS X 10.3 turning into 10.4, but fail to suspect that it might have happened by itself over billions of years.
It is difficult to imagine that a species could change because it wanted to or was simply adapting to terrain or environment. Environment changes drastically in 1 billion years, to extreme ups and downs within a year. By the time a successful alteration is made a billion years later, the scenario for which it was manifested has long past. Another reason that selfwill-based changes are unlikely is simply the state of humans -- no claws, fangs, wings, exoskeleton, etc. What guy never wanted one or all of these? I could frankly go for an exoskeleton and the ability to fly. It sure would help me to escape plane ticket prices. Despite any amount of jumping and flapping that me and my descendants attempt, I nary suspect any of us will sprout wings because we wanted to mutate.
ID attempts to address the quandry of "how did they know to do that?" changes that only seem possible if someone had set them purposely to interact with each other. If random mutations suddenly just "caught on" by process of elimination and the survivor made more of himself, how did he know to stop mutating and that this was the most suitable mutation to reproduce? How did his progenitors know they needed to mutate in order to survive? The "tendency of an object in motion to stay in motion" is too strong to stop just because it happened to.
In observing the comments on this article, it is amazing to me that so-called scientists are so red-in-the-face-p'd-off-so-let's-nuke-the-snot-ou
It was my understanding that science can never solidly declare any given concept, despite how well tested, as the Truth, because doing so would make them biased since science is always objective. By nature, science cannot refuse to address any given position because doing so would be unscience-like. The obviousness that ID is incorrect by evo'ers is the identical obviousness that evolution is incorrect to ID'ers.
It is also baffling as to why "fundamentalist" is such a dirty word. An accountant trusts that the fundamentals of math will remain correct and utilizes them daily, making him/her a math fundie. An acrobat understands fundamentals of how his body works and the balance it is capable of, making him a bio-fundie. A child relies on the ball to bounce in order to continue having fun, so is therefore a reaction-fundie. A Christian trusts that Christ's sacrifice pays the balance of all his/her sin ever comitted past and future to reconcile with God's tally, so he/she is a religious fundie, but is ridiculed. How is this different?
When will it be "Parents irresponsible with how they raised their child leads to deaths"?
This statement is only a very slight variation on putting the blame on Wal-Mart or the video game industry -- away from the actual perpetrator of the crime. Otherwise I would agree with you. The degree of displacement of blame might seem more legitimate from your perspective, but in a your-word-against-theirs stalemate argument, they thought the blame could just as easily be placed on the producers.
A crime is committed by an individual who rationalizes that (a) the crime is worth the punishment, (b) the crime will result in no punishment (unenforced), (c) it is arguably "un-press-chargeable" (conditional legality), (d) this is a perfectly legitimate action (legal), or something else entirely.
In each case, it is a decision made by the individual -- regardless of upbringing. Even if you were brought up in a home where police were labeled enemies and your parents had you practice stabbing a stuffed policeman for the eventual "upcoming test", it is still completely your decision regardless of how much thought you put into it beforehand (whether by impulse or premeditated).
The evidence that will eventually lead the industry to win the case is the umpteen skatrillion other teens who did not pursue this action after playing the game. If tried as an adult, the parents ought to (IMO) have zero liability unless they had prior knowledge that the situation was a possibility and did nothing about it (negligence).
You will only be able to try if you have an immortal soul, which is what you were trying to prove. You can't prove the existence of something by assuming it's existence.
// Reading what? Slashdot? Slashdot is proof of God?
It's not an assumption, nor has the proof's "experiment" (although quite risky) been completed yet. You're assuming the "hypothesis" has been already proven, yet strangely enough, you're not dead yet. You will find it is true, after death. Not maybe. That is the only proof, this side of the chasm, that I can offer.
You are reading it.
If you recall, your argument was that God should find you if He's so great 'n' grand. However, the seed seems to have fallen to the wayside. (Matthew 13:3-23)
You haven't shown that these things actually happened. Why do you believe they did? The Bible says so? How do you know the Bible is accurate?
So, you suppose that manuscripts passed down from ages past, delicately kept and translated so all may read, verified by historians and scholars alike and confirmed, proven then by the times thereof, are now false?
Do you also question the existence of Abraham Lincoln? You have neither seen nor heard him personally, but thousands of people will testify to his existence and claim he was the president. Historians verify and confirm, scholars agree. There is no way to physically prove, aside from texts, art, and word of mouth that Abraham Lincoln truly existed and was president. Such is the same for Jesus, except the proof of the 'hypothesis' above.
If I were to tell you that "if you put a piece of meat in the fire, it will sizzle, some of it turned into carbons, and become very tough," you might say, if you had never observed nor heard such a thing, that such a thing is absurd. There would be no way for me to prove it but to show you, or for you to try it yourself, but having it shown to me gives me faith that the process is true.
God reveals truth personally to those who earnestly and honestly seek answers, not just hoping to get a clue. If you really want to risk it, feel free to completely ignore my suggestion. Otherwise, some day soon, where no one can see you or hear, silently pray in all honesty of seeking for answers. After doing so, be patient and heed your circustances. God works on His own timescale, not yours. If nothing happens, then no big deal. No one knew about it, and no one ever will as long as you don't tell them. No embarassment, no shunning, and you've proved your measely point. Prove me wrong once and for all. Refuse and you have conceded the arguement.
Sample Prayer and short explanation or Full Explanation.
Prove that we have an eternal soul.
When we both have died, I will try and send you a message enscribed, "Well?"
God is smarter than I am. Let Him try to find me.
You are reading it.
Trust has to be earned.
What more do you want than haven taken a ton of lashes while tied to a post in full view of crowds, hands and feet NAILED to a wooden post (have you ever taken a nail and pounded it into your foot? Not pleasant.), being stabbed in the gut with a spear while hanging there, worn a mockingly-gestured "crown" of thorns tearing into the flesh of your scalp, and finally dying? You come back when you've already experienced these things and we'll talk about earning.
Not in response to David, but to those countering:
It is worrisome how many people demand an explanation as to why something happened, or else demand that someone or something take the blame for it. The problem with 98% of the opposing posts on this Christ thread are because they focus ONLY in the 80 or so years that someone is alive.
How long does a person stay alive?
How long is eternity?
Cancer matters approximately JACK in the scope of eternity. The time that a person had pain 5 billion eons ago grows increasingly insignificant as infinity progresses. The length of time that Person Q was without a father because of that car accident that was "nobody's fault" has approximately ZERO weight compared to the length of time after Person Q buys the farm and is no longer in pain.
Here's the deal, summary of the NT courtesy yours truly, minus the history lesson:
1. Look for Jesus (who IS God, made flesh). (For you programmer types, in relation to Larry Wall's interview, you probably find that by speaking with the Author you can learn more than by just reading the manual.) Why just God, and not Odin, Allah, or Bugs Bunny? God is unique because NONE of the others want you or me, the servant, in his kingdom without earning the way there. God has completely provided the way to paradise, all you have to do is take him up on the offer.
2. When you find Him, trust Him that he knows what to do. You can't earn your way in, and nor can you sin your way out. You're ALREADY out (as is everyone else, Christians included), and by His MERCY are people allowed in. You've already been given the invitation, just RSVP. The Invitation will not expire. (find the mp3 "The Invitation" by Petra). Grace is granting the peace you DON'T deserve, mercy is withholding the destruction you DO.
3. Remember where your trust is, and compare any kind of temporal (short-lived) inconvenience, which ranges from ingrown toenail to severed head, to the scope of infinity. By comparison, all tragedies great and small in the span of a human life matter as much as the penny you just passed on the sidewalk. (and now that I said that, you'll probably remember that every time you see a penny! Ha!)
P.S. "It doesn't matter what you guess what will happen, rather what really DOES happen."
P.P.S. Regarding the "Free Will vs. All Powerful" argument, consider also that God is neither bound by the dimension of time. While you KNOW what will happen at the end of "The Matrix" the characters in the movie still choose of their own will. God COULD make us all robots to obey Him, but what kind of obedience would that really be? Would it not be exponentially greater a feat to have created a free-willed person that CHOSE to obey?