Can you please clarify your position as a Christian who believes in Evolution?
One can believe in evolution (e.g. Microevolution, which is observable) while not believing in Common Descent. This doesn't not contradict the belief that man was literally created in the God's image.
But, and this is much more alarming, it also can execute arbitrary commands. It connects to the remote server, asks it what to execute, and then executes it. That's VERY scary, no matter what is currently collected. Imagine a hacker getting access to the server customers connect to.
That's about as scary as a hacker getting complete access to the WindowsUpdate.com servers or some popular Linux distribution update servers, right?
The first reference to the 10 Commandments is in Exodus 20. Lets take a look at it shall we? Note the strongs numbers, so you can look up the Hebrew lexicon yourself.
Exo 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear (Strongs 6030) false (strongs 8267) witness (strongs 5707) against thy neighbor (strongs 7453 )."
Wow, you have an open mind, sort of. Anyway, let me propose something to you that puts a nail in the head of evolution. Look up information regarding the logarithmic decay of the speed of light. Photons affect radioactive decay and the changing speed of light affects the rate of radioactive decay. There is clear scientific evidence light is slowing down (less so now because of the logarithmic nature of the decrease). With that said, if carbon dating is based on radioactive decay and decay is based on the speed of light, carbon dating needs fixed. The anwers need modified to show accurate dates. When those dates are modified correctly billions of years turns into thousands which blows evolution out of the water. I'd like your opinion on the matter if you would be so kind. I found this site which discusses the speed of light decay. An interesting timeline is also provided which shows a different view of earth's age
Wow. I guess it was easier for moderators to mod you down rather than allow fellow/.ers to address your argument.:-/
What I meant was, how can you explain the origin of life - when no-one knows how life originated, yet alone prove it. Anything you explain to the kids regarding this will be conjecture at best. There is no testable hypothesis when it comes to the origin of life. No-one has been able to reproduce this event.
... but for something to be a science it must have testable hypotheses (as many others no doubt have pointed out at this point).
I guess that rules out the theory of Universal Common Descent then, huh? So tell me, how do you explain the origin of life to school children using testable hypotheses? Can't huh? Thought not! So where did we come from? What about universal common descent? Ever explain to a child that a cabbage and a human share a common ancestor? Heh!
Slashdot, the place where a "troll" is defined as someone with a differing opinion or world view to the majority.
Sorry buddy, the commandment you are looking for is: "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour."
Key words "false witness" and "against your neighbour". It refers to telling of lies, but even more specifically against one's neighbour. It's about justice and truth. It does not mean one cannot have an opinion in the topic we are currently discussing. Nice try though.:-)
ID is the study of the design. It's science, much like forensics, etc. It's not the study of the designer, which is definitely within the realm of religion, philosophy, art, etc.
It is my personal opinion that most Origin of Life theories and the belief in Universal Common Descent take more faith to believe in than ID. It is exactly as you say "You either believe one way or the other." Just my $0.02.
When you push the button at the top once, it puts the phone to sleep. When you hold the "sleep" button down for 3 seconds, it actually turns off- totally off.
The power button on my Windows Mobile device is the opposite of how the iPhone power button works: When you push the button at the top once, it actually turns off- totally off. When you hold the "sleep" button down for 3 seconds, it puts the phone to sleep.
1. Who won for Bush and Co the Y2K election? Who mobilised a certain part of the American population to vote for the righteous man and who taught them who is the righteous man this time?
2. Who is one of the major supporters of Mr Thompson?
Add 2 and 2...
Jesus?
Je...Jes...don't you kids know anything? The Serpent of Rehaboam? [the kids look blank]
The Well of Zohassadar? [the kids look blank]
The Bridal Feast of Beth Chedruharazzeb?
If Comcast sends RST packets to both ends of the connection (and why wouldn't they?), it doesn't matter whether or not you're dropping them, it matters that the other guy isn't.
Is that even legal? Why should Comcast initiate it's own communications with computers that you are peered with? Can they send RST packets to whomever they like? Can anyone?
Interesting. So how about finger prints and DNA samples? In the US is one ever required to allow samples to be taken if they are going to incriminate one's self? In my country, when arrested by the police, fingerprints are taken. No choice given. These can be used to pin you to the crime if there's a match. They can also be put through a database of historic crimes see find a match. If you were initially falsely arrested on a charge (i.e innocent), but guilty of a historical charge where they obtained fingerprint samples and stored them - you are pretty much screwed I guess when there's a match.
C'mon. We shouldn't rely on such devices as evidence anyway. IMO devices are useful for detection, but not conclusive. In my country electronic devices are used to detect alcamahol all the time, but these are not used as evidence. The defendant must immediately give a blood sample - or be prosecuted for not supplying blood.
When early electronic breathalizers first came out here years ago they either didn't detect the alcohol at all, or they false alarmed by detecting toothpaste and aftershave. The blood test is conclusive. Why should we trust these new tech devices? I mean people here successfully challenged the accuracy of speedcameras and other such devices. We want to be sure.
Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C., and Rasnick, D. (2003). The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. Journal of Biosciences 28(4), 383-412.
The abstract:
In 1981 a new epidemic of about two-dozen heterogeneous diseases began to strike non-randomly growing
numbers of male homosexuals and mostly male intravenous drug users in the US and Europe. Assuming
immunodeficiency as the common denominator the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) termed the epidemic,
AIDS, for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. From 1981-1984 leading researchers including those from the
CDC proposed that recreational drug use was the cause of AIDS, because of exact correlations and of drugspecific
diseases. However, in 1984 US government researchers proposed that a virus, now termed human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), is the cause of the non-random epidemics of the US and Europe but also of a
new, sexually random epidemic in Africa. The virus-AIDS hypothesis was instantly accepted, but it is burdened
with numerous paradoxes, none of which could be resolved by 2003: Why is there no HIV in most AIDS
patients, only antibodies against it? Why would HIV take 10 years from infection to AIDS? Why is AIDS not
self-limiting via antiviral immunity? Why is there no vaccine against AIDS? Why is AIDS in the US and
Europe not random like other viral epidemics? Why did AIDS not rise and then decline exponentially owing to
antiviral immunity like all other viral epidemics? Why is AIDS not contagious? Why would only HIV carriers
get AIDS who use either recreational or anti-HIV drugs or are subject to malnutrition? Why is the mortality of
HIV-antibody-positives treated with anti-HIV drugs 7-9%, but that of all (mostly untreated) HIV-positives
globally is only 1×4%? Here we propose that AIDS is a collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational
drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition. According to this hypothesis AIDS is not contagious, not immunogenic,
not treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and HIV is just a passenger virus. The hypothesis explains
why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they
manifest in drug- and malnutrition-specific diseases, and why they are not self-limiting via anti-viral immunity.
The hypothesis predicts AIDS prevention by adequate nutrition and abstaining from drugs, and even cures by
treating AIDS diseases with proven medications.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows already has "Automatic Updates". The latest version of IE is offered. You don't even need to use the browser to check for updates.
Can you please clarify your position as a Christian who believes in Evolution?
One can believe in evolution (e.g. Microevolution, which is observable) while not believing in Common Descent. This doesn't not contradict the belief that man was literally created in the God's image.
hmmm... the link works for me.
Uh, maybe not. :-)
The first reference to the 10 Commandments is in Exodus 20. Lets take a look at it shall we? Note the strongs numbers, so you can look up the Hebrew lexicon yourself.
Exo 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear (Strongs 6030) false (strongs 8267) witness (strongs 5707) against thy neighbor (strongs 7453 )."
H6030 = Speak, give account
H8267 = Untruth, lie, deceit
H5707 = Witness, testimony
H7452 = brother, companion, friend, lover
Your view, while admirable, is incorrect really. Sorry.
What I meant was, how can you explain the origin of life - when no-one knows how life originated, yet alone prove it. Anything you explain to the kids regarding this will be conjecture at best. There is no testable hypothesis when it comes to the origin of life. No-one has been able to reproduce this event.
Slashdot, the place where a "troll" is defined as someone with a differing opinion or world view to the majority.
Sorry buddy, the commandment you are looking for is: "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour."
:-)
Key words "false witness" and "against your neighbour". It refers to telling of lies, but even more specifically against one's neighbour. It's about justice and truth. It does not mean one cannot have an opinion in the topic we are currently discussing. Nice try though.
ID is the study of the design. It's science, much like forensics, etc. It's not the study of the designer, which is definitely within the realm of religion, philosophy, art, etc.
It is my personal opinion that most Origin of Life theories and the belief in Universal Common Descent take more faith to believe in than ID. It is exactly as you say "You either believe one way or the other." Just my $0.02.
Great post. Thanks dude. :-)
When you push the button at the top once, it actually turns off- totally off. When you hold the "sleep" button down for 3 seconds, it puts the phone to sleep.
Je...Jes...don't you kids know anything? The Serpent of Rehaboam?
[the kids look blank]
The Well of Zohassadar?
[the kids look blank]
The Bridal Feast of Beth Chedruharazzeb?
If they did this in the US, they'd now be be "holidaying" for an age in Gitmo. :-/
But where will you find beaches full of holidaymakers freezing on a typical miserable overcast day? :-)
Hammond? :-)
Interesting. So how about finger prints and DNA samples? In the US is one ever required to allow samples to be taken if they are going to incriminate one's self? In my country, when arrested by the police, fingerprints are taken. No choice given. These can be used to pin you to the crime if there's a match. They can also be put through a database of historic crimes see find a match. If you were initially falsely arrested on a charge (i.e innocent), but guilty of a historical charge where they obtained fingerprint samples and stored them - you are pretty much screwed I guess when there's a match.
C'mon. We shouldn't rely on such devices as evidence anyway. IMO devices are useful for detection, but not conclusive. In my country electronic devices are used to detect alcamahol all the time, but these are not used as evidence. The defendant must immediately give a blood sample - or be prosecuted for not supplying blood.
When early electronic breathalizers first came out here years ago they either didn't detect the alcohol at all, or they false alarmed by detecting toothpaste and aftershave. The blood test is conclusive. Why should we trust these new tech devices? I mean people here successfully challenged the accuracy of speedcameras and other such devices. We want to be sure.
There should be no user records to destroy in the first place!!!
Over a month ago (26 June 2007), this decision was made.
On 6 July 2007, one of the 2 major politic parties decided to rethink the ban after media companies gave the NZ parliament the finger.
Over 3 weeks later, after talkback radio and online discussions have done to death, it gets posted to Slashdot.
I really feel embiggened now.
Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C., and Rasnick, D. (2003). The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. Journal of Biosciences 28(4), 383-412.
The abstract: