How strong of a magnetic field does it take to kill a person?
I don't think that question has been answered. A magnetic field doesn't tend to cause subatomic particles to go ripping through a body the same way an electric field does. Small creatures such as frogs have been levitated in fields around 16 T, and as far as I know they appear to be unaffected afterward. However, strong magnetic fields do appear to disrupt natural development of frog embryos--the cells tend to divide in the wrong order, so to speak.
At the moment, there is a big problem with trying to apply a really huge (order of magnitude greater than MRI) magnetic field to a human: the cylindrical space in which the field is strongest is pretty small. Maybe you could fit a couple of fingers in there, but certainly not a human head or torso.
Don't expect that argument to work. Anyone paying attention will notice that not even roblimo's original post was HTML-compliant. Clearly that's not an issue as far as he's concerned.:-)
Better yet, try AltaVista's Raging Search. It's just like the old AltaVista, back when they were a top-notch search engine and not a (crappy) portal. It is quite obviously designed to compete with Google. I find that Google and Raging together cover most of my search needs.
I've read quite a few posts where people seem to be ripping on the HP49G, saying the hardware is low quality and the software is buggy.
I *love* my HP 48GX, and find it difficult to believe that the successor would suck so hard. Has anyone out there upgraded from the 48 to the 49? Can you provide an objective comparison of the two models?
The fact is, those who are willing to bend the truth of the Bible no longer have a leg to stand on from the point of view of defending creation. It's kind of an all-or-nothing argument as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, this has been an enjoyable thread. You've made me think more than I've had to for a while.
I look forward to your postings at the next/. creation/evolution debate, which is probably due in about two months.:-)
But I still claim this isn't the problem you make it out to be. Context generally makes clear the intent of specific words, and Bible translators also study non-biblical texts for additional clues about the meaning of common phrasings, etc. There may be some subtle nuances that are lost in the translation, but the fundamental messages are not.
The bible isn't written like a textbook, full of exact facts, figures and dates, it's much more metaphorical, therefore open to interpretation.
Only in parts. Kings and Chronicles, for example, are historical records with lots of exact facts, figures and dates. The epistles of Paul offer quite straightforward reading. The Revelation, of course, is highly symbolic.
personally, i just think science isn't NEARLY that far yet. The answers to these questions, just like all others, will be answered in time.
At last, a point on which we agree.:-)
one funny thing about the bible is how it doesn't mention dinosaurs, or, for that matter, any creatures that existed millions of years before humans walked the planet. Doesn't it strike you as weird that none of this is explained? What about the fact that, if you play by the bible's rules, the earth is only 6,000 years old?
I do believe in a young earth. It is my belief that current radiometric dating methods are based on incorrect assumptions. In addition, there is an overwhelming tendency in the scientific community to report only the dates that support the hypothesized age of the material. Check the following links for more info:
The Bible does not specifically mention "dinosaurs," but it does mention "great beasts." Also, keep in mind that the Great Flood takes place already in Genesis 6. If you assume that most of the dinosaurs died off shortly after the flood, then there aren't many Bible pages dedicated to the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
we can say with an incredible amount of certainty that humans did evolve (not from apes) from a common ancestor of apes.
Careful with the hyperbole there. What is the ancestor? Is it in the fossil record? Is it more than just a jawbone and a big toe? If so, can you prove that it's not really just a homo sapien that lived under harsh environmental conditions and came from an isolated gene pool? There have been lots of supposed "transitional forms" found in the past that failed under further scrutiny.
If humans were created, as they are today, by god about six thousand years ago...then the gene for homosexuality was most obviously placed in humans by god.
First of all, I believe the jury is still out on the nature vs. nurture impact on homosexuality. But let's assume you are right, and homosexuality is simply one of the possible DNA permutations. According to the Bible, man's perfect form was corrupted by the fall into sin (ref. Romans 5, for example). So God did not necessarily introduce a homosexuality gene at creation, but mankind may have brought it upon itself. Of course, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to have the gene for homosexuality--it simply says that homosexual behavior is wrong. So if a Christian were to be in the unfortunate circumstance of having irreversible homosexual tendencies (which again is open to debate), he/she has the option to remain celibate.
And I know that is totally not PC, but too bad. I'm not about to reject the Bible on the basis of what is popularly accepted. Mankind is fallible, as you previously wrote.
they've already found a specific governing gene for homosexuality in fruit flies
I have heard that. My question is, what did the study actually find? Sexual behavior in fruit flies is a lot different from sexual behavior in humans. Was it just a tendency for, say, male flies to be attracted to the pheromones of other male flies? If it's something along those lines, I don't think it's even valid to extrapolate up to the complexity of human genetics.
The saga continues... Wonder if anyone else is reading this thread?:-)
The burden of proof lies solely on you "believers." - you can't say that something is fact and then tell people to try to disprove it.
IMO, that argument is a little narrow-minded (just as it is narrow-minded to completely ignore the evidence in favor of atheism, evolution, etc.). Suppose we lived in Newtonian times, and I told you that matter has a wave-particle dual nature. There was no known evidence at that time, but does that make the statement false? There is little "solid" evidence in favor of the existence of God. Of course, I feel there is also little solid evidence supporting the Big Bang, for example. I can at least understand why most of the scientific community accepts evolution, but the Big Bang eludes me.
However, if you are interested in evidence supporting the existence of God, here are a few points:
There is undeniable evidence of a fundamental order in the universe (physics doesn't change, etc.). That is easily explained by a Creator who set all things in motion and continues to maintain them. Does the Big Bang theory provide a satisfactory explanation? I find it lacking. And what was there before the Big Bang (from what was it composed)? Lots of questions there.
Serious study of the Bible (with an open mind) shows remarkable consistency over the passage of time. Prophecy revealed... prophecy later fulfilled. Excluding the multitude of Messianic prophecies, consider the predictions of the Babylonian captivity, Roman empire, and destruction of the Jerusalem temple (among others). The Bible as we know it was written over a span of 4000 years. It is difficult to fathom any man-made conspiracy that could have lasted that long. Also, consider that the Bible's historical accuracy continues to be confirmed by modern archaeology.
The early Christian church grew faster than any in history (well before the Crusades, that is). The circumstances at that time were ideal for the spread of the Word. Virtually everyone in the area spoke Greek, due to Alexander's influence. The Roman empire was in power; Romans did not interfere with local worship customs, but did built roads throughout the region and maintained peace in the area. That made possible the missionary journeys of Paul and others. Were these conditions simply coincidence, or evidence of the hand of God? (See Sir Thomas Aquinas' writings for more on this argument.)
The sheer improbability of life developing on its own is not an issue in Creationism. You must be bothered by the whole "simple compounds -> amino acids -> (bingo!) single-celled organism". Somehow the billions, er, trillions of years is just not a satisfying explanation.
But it's still up to the believers to PROVE that he exists. Why hasn't god done that yet?
You got me there. If God were a rational human being, he undoubtedly would make his existence known. But there is no reason to assume that God "thinks" like men do--it makes more sense to assume that any being capable of the act of creation would be "thinking" on some higher level beyond our comprehension.
You are basically saying that the bible is truth if God exists. Well, that's what we're trying to debate.
We could go at that all week. You say, "Prove to me that God exists." I say "Prove to me that he does not." Stalemate. If, however, someone has become convinced that God does exist (say, by evidence of an order in the universe that is is not adequately explained by science), then the Bible is a logical place to look for further information.
The cannon (the books of the bible) was chosen by echumenical(sp?) council
True enough, although "ecumenical" might not be the best term to use. Basically it was the early Catholic church, which clung far more tightly to scripture than it does today. (Whoops, guess I'm letting my bias show...)
Different people who were commisioned to write the bible, most of whom were commanded by Alexander the Great, for the library in Alexandria.
Not sure where your information comes from. Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. He was not around. Maybe you are referring to the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek? Which is not really relevant, as Hebrew texts remained.
The currently accepted New Testament was written by the apostles, close associates of the apostles, and other disciples of Christ. Writings by (very) early church leaders give strong evidence supporting the identities of most N.T. authors. I will grant that a few books are in dispute. Some believe that Revelation, II Peter, II and III John are forgeries, Jude was not close enough to Christ to be a qualified biblical writer, and the authorship of Hebrews is somewhat uncertain. One would be justified in taking care when using those books.
Additionally, note the differences in the stories of Jesus's life between Mathew and Mark, and then Mathew and Luke.
Each of the gospel authors provides a different perspective on the life of Christ. Matthew was writing to the Jews, Mark to the Gentiles; Luke provides a physician's point of view. In particular, John overlaps relatively little on the other gospels--John wrote some time later, so it is believed that he was attempting to give some details that other authors had left out.
There are a few details that appear to conflict between the gospels. Generally these may be resolved by an informed consultation of a text in the original language.
you referenced the KJNV
Actually, the NKJV (New King James Version). It is a much more recent translation, which reads in pretty plain English.
I will freely admit that subtle nuances are lost in any translation. The important thing is that the general meaning is not lost, so that non-Greek/Hebrew speakers can learn as much as possible. On occasion, there is no choice but to consult an original language text to resolve some details--that is why we have theologians.
each editing altered the bible's content slightly.
The study of ancient biblical texts is certainly non-trivial. The O.T. texts are really not in dispute. However, the N.T. texts do have some subtle (and occasionally some not-so-subtle) differences. The guidelines used to choose the best (most accurate) texts include age, simplicity of language (it is believed that more florid texts were rewritten to suit the language of the day), majority of use (widely accepted texts are probably widely accepted because they originally came from reliable sources), and confirmation by other texts. I am not really qualified to comment beyond that.
If this is the word of god...why has it been changed so much by the languages of men?
I do not believe it has changed so much. In particular, the core doctrine of "salvation by faith in Christ alone" has not changed. (Unless you are Catholic, in which case the Pope somehow holds more weight than the Bible.)
So your "inspiration" argument falls flat on its face...
I was not trying to make an argument. Clearly, I have no scientific proof that the copies of the original manuscripts are valid--just as you have no proof of the opposite. And I am, unfortunately, somewhat underqualified to talk about how books were chosen to go into the Bible; I believe that is related to comparison of earlier prophecies to later recorded events, among other things. My point, if you follow the thread, was simply that many Christians believe the Bible is infallible because it was inspired by God. Hence, the comment I was responding to, "ironic that the bible is infallible if it was written by man" holds little weight for many people.
So how do we know if the manuscripts which were used for translation were even valid? What verse in scripture will address this question?
I'll do my best. Try Matthew 24:35:
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. (NKJV text)
The Bible was written by committee, not by God.
A natural conclusion to make if you do not believe that God exists. If the Bible took the form of a direct divine revelation rather than a historical document, you would undoubtedly still be saying it was created by men.
By the way, if you are making arguments like these, I hope you have at least read the Bible.
ironic that the bible is infallible if it was written by man.
Most Christians believe that the Bible was written by God, through men. This is usually called "inspiration" by God. That idea comes from passages such as 2 Peter 1:20-21:
...no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV text)
It's also been translated, over hundreds of years, by scores of different writers.
I'm tired of hearing this flawed argument every time a creation/evolution debate comes up on Slashdot. Yes, the Bible has been translated into many different languages. However, in virtually every case, the translations are made from the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. If you are concerned that the meaning of the text has changed due to translation from Greek to Latin to German to English, stop worrying.
Nope. 3d data is already smaller than 2d data. You have a set of textures (already present in a 2d movie, except that you don't tend to save space by knowing where/how they're tiled) and a set of meshes. Everything is included ONCE and then re-used later when it's needed without having to redownload if you're streaming.
I think what you're saying here is that *motion* 3d is smaller than 2d video. True enough, assuming the motion 3d is done in an intelligent fashion. However, a 3d geometry snapshot of a scene has more information than a 2d image of the scene. The 3d snapshot has to store 2d textures for *all* the surfaces, plus vertex information.
So really, I can't see what they've actually accomplished here, and it's definitely apples and oranges to compare anything for 3d data with a 2d video standard. Perhaps they are misusing the term three-dimensional.
As I understand things, they have come up with a new method to compress the vertex information in a 3d wireframe. I do not know whether their research has taken the next logical step of compressing a wireframe as it moves through time (an algorithm could be developed which exploits redundancy between frames).
Also it is not "apples and oranges" to compare this to MPEG4, as MPEG4 does contain a standard for compressing 3d geometry information. It's not just a simple 2D video standard.
Maybe you should look at some different samples. Wavelet image compression is impressive. Check out JPEG 2000 for what is bound to become the next big standard.
This is just for 3d geometry data. It is a *lossy* compression algorithm, which means that the uncompressed data is not identical to the original data, just very close. The algorithm requires certain assumptions about the data set--for example, it probably assumes that all the vertices in a certain region of space lie close to some surface that readily expressed in terms of wavelets. (If that is not the case, then the data set you are working with probably does not resemble an object occurring in nature.) It is those assumptions which make such large compression ratios possible.
But because we humans are so goddamn different, we need to contemplate the issue forever. Why?
Simple. Of all the species on this planet, humans alone are capable of contemplating the issue. Like it or not, we are different from "all the other animals."
We simply wield the power of evolution the same way that nature wields it. It is not wrong, unless you believe that we are "different", which is a morally immature opinion.
In your opinion. Forgive me, but who gives you the right to judge what is morally immature? This issue is not that clear-cut.
Sometimes I wish there were a distributed computing project out there that I actually cared about. Maybe we should start a project to scan the space of all 2MB Linux ELF executables until we find one that corresponds to a fast, stable, standards-compliant web browser. The funny thing is, that might actually take less time than Mozilla...
I believe NS6pre1 is a couple of months old at this point. The Mozilla browser has improved significantly since the release that was repackaged by Netscape. Try one of the nightly builds.
I think if you pay close enough attention you'll notice that the story was posted by JonKatz, but there have been a whole lotta thread posts from jonkatz (who strangely seems to have an automatic +2... methinks a global karma whoring conspiracy is afoot).
You gotta love the liberal use of buzzwords. Is anyone else bothered by the use of the prefix "nano" to describe something large enough to have a 6 kg mass? After reading the headline I was expecting something the size of a pebble. I guess maybe they'd call that a "picosatellite"...
Maybe this is proof that the British really don't get the metric system.:-P
It depends entirely on what the software is. If I'm playing around with a very user-friendly app, I don't mind having to open up a.pdf file for a couple of minutes to answer a simple question. However, there's nothing worse than having to constantly flip windows back and forth between an application and the documentation--that cuts productivity in half. If the software is not self-explanatory, there's no substitute for a printed manual. At least, not until two monitors become standard (mmmm... XFree86 4.0...).
Glad I decided to look back on this dead thread.:-)
Because no one really has enough information to determine (from scientific reasoning) the origins of the universe, one must naturally start with some assumptions. Just as evolutionists start with the assumption that there is no creator being, I start with the assumption that Genesis is a historical record--a Creator exists, and creation is described in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Given these assumptions, I have no problem with some of your objections:
Seeing light from faraway stars: If you accept that God created the stars to provide some night-time lighting for the organisms that He would put on earth, then naturally light waves would *already* have been propogating between the stars and the earth. Otherwise the stars would have served no purpose.
I have no problem with the existence of dinosaurs. As a matter of fact, the great flood described in Genesis 7-8 is one explanation for their extinction.
The "ologists" arrive at long age estimates due to radiometric dating and geologic information. Radiometric dating processes are far less reliable (especially for long term dating) than is widely believed. Geologic records are often explained just as well by the great flood as they are by "old earth" science.
There is significant evidence supporting creation rather than evolution. Here are a couple of good links that give a (scientific) creation perspective on many issues:
Answers in Genesis -- You may be particularly interested in the FAQ's on radiometric dating and young age evidence.
I hope this gives you some idea how an educated person can believe something other than evolution. I admit, it's not always easy when evolution theory is treated as fact and shoveled into your head all the way through grade school, high school, and college.
I don't know if you'll see this or not, but I'll try to revisit the dead thread in a few days if you'd like to discuss further.
First of all, I appreciate the fact that you use your head when you reply to something that you may not agree with. Brainless bible-bashing gets tiresome, but you have a valid point. Trying to glean the intent of a biblical passage is not always easy, and a theologian (which I am not) will often look to the original Greek or Hebrew text in an effort to cut through the translation problems.
Now, regarding your interpretation question: If you compare vs. 20 and 21, the implication is that the *prophet* did not make his own interpretation of God's inspiration. It is not talking about the reader's interpretation of the prophet's words. This is confirmed by a superior translation in the New International Version:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -- 2 Pe. 1:20-21
Interpretation of the Bible is necessary in many circumstances. As I commented in another reply, the book of Revelation is written primarily in picture language; a literal interpretation has lead many to think the apocalypse is coming in year X. When interpreted metaphorically, and with the context of the remainder of the Bible, Revelation makes much more sense.
Genesis, on the other hand, does not read metaphorically. It reads like a historical account, much like the other early books of the Old Testamant. Hence I take it literally.
I didn't quite say "literal," I said "without error." The book of Revelation, for example, consists mostly of picture language, dream sequences, etc. If you try to interpret it literally, and without the context of the rest of the bible, you end up with apocalyptic cults who believe the world is going to end in X number of years. Yet, if interpreted properly, in those pictures are found many truths.
Genesis, on the other hand, does not read the same way Revelation does. It reads like most other early Old Testament books, as a historical record. That is how it should be interpreted.
Slashdot Mirror
How strong of a magnetic field does it take to kill a person?
I don't think that question has been answered. A magnetic field doesn't tend to cause subatomic particles to go ripping through a body the same way an electric field does. Small creatures such as frogs have been levitated in fields around 16 T, and as far as I know they appear to be unaffected afterward. However, strong magnetic fields do appear to disrupt natural development of frog embryos--the cells tend to divide in the wrong order, so to speak.
At the moment, there is a big problem with trying to apply a really huge (order of magnitude greater than MRI) magnetic field to a human: the cylindrical space in which the field is strongest is pretty small. Maybe you could fit a couple of fingers in there, but certainly not a human head or torso.
Heh. You used , but didn't open with . CLEARLY a standards violation. :-)
Don't expect that argument to work. Anyone paying attention will notice that not even roblimo's original post was HTML-compliant. Clearly that's not an issue as far as he's concerned. :-)
Better yet, try AltaVista's Raging Search. It's just like the old AltaVista, back when they were a top-notch search engine and not a (crappy) portal. It is quite obviously designed to compete with Google. I find that Google and Raging together cover most of my search needs.
I've read quite a few posts where people seem to be ripping on the HP49G, saying the hardware is low quality and the software is buggy.
I *love* my HP 48GX, and find it difficult to believe that the successor would suck so hard. Has anyone out there upgraded from the 48 to the 49? Can you provide an objective comparison of the two models?
The fact is, those who are willing to bend the truth of the Bible no longer have a leg to stand on from the point of view of defending creation. It's kind of an all-or-nothing argument as far as I'm concerned.
/. creation/evolution debate, which is probably due in about two months. :-)
Anyway, this has been an enjoyable thread. You've made me think more than I've had to for a while.
I look forward to your postings at the next
You're right, I did miss your point.
But I still claim this isn't the problem you make it out to be. Context generally makes clear the intent of specific words, and Bible translators also study non-biblical texts for additional clues about the meaning of common phrasings, etc. There may be some subtle nuances that are lost in the translation, but the fundamental messages are not.
The bible isn't written like a textbook, full of exact facts, figures and dates, it's much more metaphorical, therefore open to interpretation.
Only in parts. Kings and Chronicles, for example, are historical records with lots of exact facts, figures and dates. The epistles of Paul offer quite straightforward reading. The Revelation, of course, is highly symbolic.
At last, a point on which we agree.
one funny thing about the bible is how it doesn't mention dinosaurs, or, for that matter, any creatures that existed millions of years before humans walked the planet. Doesn't it strike you as weird that none of this is explained? What about the fact that, if you play by the bible's rules, the earth is only 6,000 years old?
I do believe in a young earth. It is my belief that current radiometric dating methods are based on incorrect assumptions. In addition, there is an overwhelming tendency in the scientific community to report only the dates that support the hypothesized age of the material. Check the following links for more info:
The Bible does not specifically mention "dinosaurs," but it does mention "great beasts." Also, keep in mind that the Great Flood takes place already in Genesis 6. If you assume that most of the dinosaurs died off shortly after the flood, then there aren't many Bible pages dedicated to the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
we can say with an incredible amount of certainty that humans did evolve (not from apes) from a common ancestor of apes.
Careful with the hyperbole there. What is the ancestor? Is it in the fossil record? Is it more than just a jawbone and a big toe? If so, can you prove that it's not really just a homo sapien that lived under harsh environmental conditions and came from an isolated gene pool? There have been lots of supposed "transitional forms" found in the past that failed under further scrutiny.
If humans were created, as they are today, by god about six thousand years ago...then the gene for homosexuality was most obviously placed in humans by god.
First of all, I believe the jury is still out on the nature vs. nurture impact on homosexuality. But let's assume you are right, and homosexuality is simply one of the possible DNA permutations. According to the Bible, man's perfect form was corrupted by the fall into sin (ref. Romans 5, for example). So God did not necessarily introduce a homosexuality gene at creation, but mankind may have brought it upon itself. Of course, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to have the gene for homosexuality--it simply says that homosexual behavior is wrong. So if a Christian were to be in the unfortunate circumstance of having irreversible homosexual tendencies (which again is open to debate), he/she has the option to remain celibate.
And I know that is totally not PC, but too bad. I'm not about to reject the Bible on the basis of what is popularly accepted. Mankind is fallible, as you previously wrote.
they've already found a specific governing gene for homosexuality in fruit flies
I have heard that. My question is, what did the study actually find? Sexual behavior in fruit flies is a lot different from sexual behavior in humans. Was it just a tendency for, say, male flies to be attracted to the pheromones of other male flies? If it's something along those lines, I don't think it's even valid to extrapolate up to the complexity of human genetics.
btw, I love your sig.
The burden of proof lies solely on you "believers." - you can't say that something is fact and then tell people to try to disprove it.
IMO, that argument is a little narrow-minded (just as it is narrow-minded to completely ignore the evidence in favor of atheism, evolution, etc.). Suppose we lived in Newtonian times, and I told you that matter has a wave-particle dual nature. There was no known evidence at that time, but does that make the statement false? There is little "solid" evidence in favor of the existence of God. Of course, I feel there is also little solid evidence supporting the Big Bang, for example. I can at least understand why most of the scientific community accepts evolution, but the Big Bang eludes me.
However, if you are interested in evidence supporting the existence of God, here are a few points:
But it's still up to the believers to PROVE that he exists. Why hasn't god done that yet?
You got me there. If God were a rational human being, he undoubtedly would make his existence known. But there is no reason to assume that God "thinks" like men do--it makes more sense to assume that any being capable of the act of creation would be "thinking" on some higher level beyond our comprehension.
You are basically saying that the bible is truth if God exists. Well, that's what we're trying to debate.
We could go at that all week. You say, "Prove to me that God exists." I say "Prove to me that he does not." Stalemate. If, however, someone has become convinced that God does exist (say, by evidence of an order in the universe that is is not adequately explained by science), then the Bible is a logical place to look for further information.
The cannon (the books of the bible) was chosen by echumenical(sp?) council
True enough, although "ecumenical" might not be the best term to use. Basically it was the early Catholic church, which clung far more tightly to scripture than it does today. (Whoops, guess I'm letting my bias show...)
Different people who were commisioned to write the bible, most of whom were commanded by Alexander the Great, for the library in Alexandria.
Not sure where your information comes from. Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. He was not around. Maybe you are referring to the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek? Which is not really relevant, as Hebrew texts remained.
The currently accepted New Testament was written by the apostles, close associates of the apostles, and other disciples of Christ. Writings by (very) early church leaders give strong evidence supporting the identities of most N.T. authors. I will grant that a few books are in dispute. Some believe that Revelation, II Peter, II and III John are forgeries, Jude was not close enough to Christ to be a qualified biblical writer, and the authorship of Hebrews is somewhat uncertain. One would be justified in taking care when using those books.
Additionally, note the differences in the stories of Jesus's life between Mathew and Mark, and then Mathew and Luke.
Each of the gospel authors provides a different perspective on the life of Christ. Matthew was writing to the Jews, Mark to the Gentiles; Luke provides a physician's point of view. In particular, John overlaps relatively little on the other gospels--John wrote some time later, so it is believed that he was attempting to give some details that other authors had left out.
There are a few details that appear to conflict between the gospels. Generally these may be resolved by an informed consultation of a text in the original language.
you referenced the KJNV
Actually, the NKJV (New King James Version). It is a much more recent translation, which reads in pretty plain English.
I will freely admit that subtle nuances are lost in any translation. The important thing is that the general meaning is not lost, so that non-Greek/Hebrew speakers can learn as much as possible. On occasion, there is no choice but to consult an original language text to resolve some details--that is why we have theologians.
each editing altered the bible's content slightly.
The study of ancient biblical texts is certainly non-trivial. The O.T. texts are really not in dispute. However, the N.T. texts do have some subtle (and occasionally some not-so-subtle) differences. The guidelines used to choose the best (most accurate) texts include age, simplicity of language (it is believed that more florid texts were rewritten to suit the language of the day), majority of use (widely accepted texts are probably widely accepted because they originally came from reliable sources), and confirmation by other texts. I am not really qualified to comment beyond that.
If this is the word of god...why has it been changed so much by the languages of men?
I do not believe it has changed so much. In particular, the core doctrine of "salvation by faith in Christ alone" has not changed. (Unless you are Catholic, in which case the Pope somehow holds more weight than the Bible.)
I was not trying to make an argument. Clearly, I have no scientific proof that the copies of the original manuscripts are valid--just as you have no proof of the opposite. And I am, unfortunately, somewhat underqualified to talk about how books were chosen to go into the Bible; I believe that is related to comparison of earlier prophecies to later recorded events, among other things. My point, if you follow the thread, was simply that many Christians believe the Bible is infallible because it was inspired by God. Hence, the comment I was responding to, "ironic that the bible is infallible if it was written by man" holds little weight for many people.
So how do we know if the manuscripts which were used for translation were even valid? What verse in scripture will address this question?
I'll do my best. Try Matthew 24:35:
The Bible was written by committee, not by God.
A natural conclusion to make if you do not believe that God exists. If the Bible took the form of a direct divine revelation rather than a historical document, you would undoubtedly still be saying it was created by men.
By the way, if you are making arguments like these, I hope you have at least read the Bible.
ironic that the bible is infallible if it was written by man.
...no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV text)
Most Christians believe that the Bible was written by God, through men. This is usually called "inspiration" by God. That idea comes from passages such as 2 Peter 1:20-21:
It's also been translated, over hundreds of years, by scores of different writers.
I'm tired of hearing this flawed argument every time a creation/evolution debate comes up on Slashdot. Yes, the Bible has been translated into many different languages. However, in virtually every case, the translations are made from the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. If you are concerned that the meaning of the text has changed due to translation from Greek to Latin to German to English, stop worrying.
Nope. 3d data is already smaller than 2d data. You have a set of textures (already present in a 2d movie, except that you don't tend to save space by knowing where/how they're tiled) and a set of meshes. Everything is included ONCE and then re-used later when it's needed without having to redownload if you're streaming.
I think what you're saying here is that *motion* 3d is smaller than 2d video. True enough, assuming the motion 3d is done in an intelligent fashion. However, a 3d geometry snapshot of a scene has more information than a 2d image of the scene. The 3d snapshot has to store 2d textures for *all* the surfaces, plus vertex information.
So really, I can't see what they've actually accomplished here, and it's definitely apples and oranges to compare anything for 3d data with a 2d video standard. Perhaps they are misusing the term three-dimensional.
As I understand things, they have come up with a new method to compress the vertex information in a 3d wireframe. I do not know whether their research has taken the next logical step of compressing a wireframe as it moves through time (an algorithm could be developed which exploits redundancy between frames).
Also it is not "apples and oranges" to compare this to MPEG4, as MPEG4 does contain a standard for compressing 3d geometry information. It's not just a simple 2D video standard.
Maybe you should look at some different samples. Wavelet image compression is impressive. Check out JPEG 2000 for what is bound to become the next big standard.
This is just for 3d geometry data. It is a *lossy* compression algorithm, which means that the uncompressed data is not identical to the original data, just very close. The algorithm requires certain assumptions about the data set--for example, it probably assumes that all the vertices in a certain region of space lie close to some surface that readily expressed in terms of wavelets. (If that is not the case, then the data set you are working with probably does not resemble an object occurring in nature.) It is those assumptions which make such large compression ratios possible.
But because we humans are so goddamn different, we need to contemplate the issue forever. Why?
Simple. Of all the species on this planet, humans alone are capable of contemplating the issue. Like it or not, we are different from "all the other animals."
We simply wield the power of evolution the same way that nature wields it. It is not wrong, unless you believe that we are "different", which is a morally immature opinion.
In your opinion. Forgive me, but who gives you the right to judge what is morally immature? This issue is not that clear-cut.
Now we can all analyze redundant data packets six times faster! :-)
Sometimes I wish there were a distributed computing project out there that I actually cared about. Maybe we should start a project to scan the space of all 2MB Linux ELF executables until we find one that corresponds to a fast, stable, standards-compliant web browser. The funny thing is, that might actually take less time than Mozilla...
I believe NS6pre1 is a couple of months old at this point. The Mozilla browser has improved significantly since the release that was repackaged by Netscape. Try one of the nightly builds.
I think if you pay close enough attention you'll notice that the story was posted by JonKatz, but there have been a whole lotta thread posts from jonkatz (who strangely seems to have an automatic +2... methinks a global karma whoring conspiracy is afoot).
You gotta love the liberal use of buzzwords. Is anyone else bothered by the use of the prefix "nano" to describe something large enough to have a 6 kg mass? After reading the headline I was expecting something the size of a pebble. I guess maybe they'd call that a "picosatellite"...
:-P
Maybe this is proof that the British really don't get the metric system.
It depends entirely on what the software is. If I'm playing around with a very user-friendly app, I don't mind having to open up a .pdf file for a couple of minutes to answer a simple question. However, there's nothing worse than having to constantly flip windows back and forth between an application and the documentation--that cuts productivity in half. If the software is not self-explanatory, there's no substitute for a printed manual. At least, not until two monitors become standard (mmmm... XFree86 4.0...).
Because no one really has enough information to determine (from scientific reasoning) the origins of the universe, one must naturally start with some assumptions. Just as evolutionists start with the assumption that there is no creator being, I start with the assumption that Genesis is a historical record--a Creator exists, and creation is described in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Given these assumptions, I have no problem with some of your objections:
Seeing light from faraway stars: If you accept that God created the stars to provide some night-time lighting for the organisms that He would put on earth, then naturally light waves would *already* have been propogating between the stars and the earth. Otherwise the stars would have served no purpose.
I have no problem with the existence of dinosaurs. As a matter of fact, the great flood described in Genesis 7-8 is one explanation for their extinction.
The "ologists" arrive at long age estimates due to radiometric dating and geologic information. Radiometric dating processes are far less reliable (especially for long term dating) than is widely believed. Geologic records are often explained just as well by the great flood as they are by "old earth" science.
There is significant evidence supporting creation rather than evolution. Here are a couple of good links that give a (scientific) creation perspective on many issues:
Creation Science
Answers in Genesis -- You may be particularly interested in the FAQ's on radiometric dating and young age evidence.
I hope this gives you some idea how an educated person can believe something other than evolution. I admit, it's not always easy when evolution theory is treated as fact and shoveled into your head all the way through grade school, high school, and college.
I don't know if you'll see this or not, but I'll try to revisit the dead thread in a few days if you'd like to discuss further.
First of all, I appreciate the fact that you use your head when you reply to something that you may not agree with. Brainless bible-bashing gets tiresome, but you have a valid point. Trying to glean the intent of a biblical passage is not always easy, and a theologian (which I am not) will often look to the original Greek or Hebrew text in an effort to cut through the translation problems.
Now, regarding your interpretation question: If you compare vs. 20 and 21, the implication is that the *prophet* did not make his own interpretation of God's inspiration. It is not talking about the reader's interpretation of the prophet's words. This is confirmed by a superior translation in the New International Version:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -- 2 Pe. 1:20-21
Interpretation of the Bible is necessary in many circumstances. As I commented in another reply, the book of Revelation is written primarily in picture language; a literal interpretation has lead many to think the apocalypse is coming in year X. When interpreted metaphorically, and with the context of the remainder of the Bible, Revelation makes much more sense.
Genesis, on the other hand, does not read metaphorically. It reads like a historical account, much like the other early books of the Old Testamant. Hence I take it literally.
I didn't quite say "literal," I said "without error." The book of Revelation, for example, consists mostly of picture language, dream sequences, etc. If you try to interpret it literally, and without the context of the rest of the bible, you end up with apocalyptic cults who believe the world is going to end in X number of years. Yet, if interpreted properly, in those pictures are found many truths.
Genesis, on the other hand, does not read the same way Revelation does. It reads like most other early Old Testament books, as a historical record. That is how it should be interpreted.