So you assume I have lots of windows and poorly insulated walls to make your point?
It would cost me 4-5 times as much to have less than half the living space for me to live 'in the city'. Cost of upkeep would be about the same. Sure I would save a little on my electric bill because I now have less space I now have to contend with noisy neighbors, parking in the open around other cars, no way to enjoy some of my hobbies. I now have to pay to store my extra things. Worry about how loud I'm playing my movies, games, instruments etc.
Oh and guess what, they still have to ship the stuff I use and the food I eat to the closest store.
I don't look at my house as an investment. I look at my house as a nice way to not have to be confined. I don't have to worry about being really quiet or be bugged by the upstairs/downstairs neighbors making noise. I don't have to worry about a neighbor smoking and the smoke floating into my living space. I can have a nice sized living room to invite friends over and a large driveway so they can park for free. If I am so inclined I could put in a swimming pool that I can have for myself whenever I want. I can go to my shed in the back and build what I want out of wood, metal etc. I can modify my house to suit my needs. I can add a room if I have another kid instead of having to move all my stuff to a new building. Not to mention being able to have free storage space. The fact that it may grow in value doesn't really make much of a difference to those of us that researched where we want to be and don't spend more than we make.
possibly, but under such stress it's easier to shoot first then ask questions which is why it's smart to not have anything in your hands and to not make sudden, quick, jerky movements. Cops have to deal with nefarious people daily and must be on their toes at all times. If you have something in your hand and you turn and point it at a cop you should expect to die of acute lead poisoning fairly soon and be thankful if you just get yelled at.
There should be no conflict with the idea of evolution and religion. There is simply no need for them to be at odds.
If you want to say that God created things perfectly then yes they are at odds. If you say God created and evolution is the mechanism used then death and sin was part of God's "perfect" creation.
This is where the creationists and evolutionists are at odds. One starts with the Biblical framework and one starts with a non-Biblical framework. One is taking the data in light of scripture and one is assuming slow and gradual processes (current rates applied to the past). Which one is right? I don't think we'll find out anytime soon and in all seriousness the debate is not harming any current *important* scientific work.
* important IMHO is medical research, technology, basically the things that don't rely on understanding long term history or where we came from to give us realistic benefits here and now.
Just because you may not own the building or the network you still have a basic right to privacy. If you want to argue that route you can still prove that you own the router, network cable, processor etc. so you still own the last few feet they are trespassing on. Heck renters still have a right to use lethal force against an intruder is many states. So there is a legal leg to stand on. Regardless privacy is the main concern.
Would that also mean that we can now sue the writers guild for making us fat by keeping us indoors watching TV during the summer instead of out taking care of the lawn?:)
I was wondering more about how the people that design the sets, the camera people, stage hands, makeup people etc. are going to be compensated or how screwed they were when they had no control over it.
I've had issues with two sellers like this.
One sent me a game without a CD key and then furnished me with the first quick google search for one. The other sent me an item that wasn't what I bought. Neither would return my emails until I left negative feedback and of course I got negative feedback and a withdrawal request the same day. The bad sellers were using negative feedback on a buyer to push for a withdrawal to keep their record clean.
I have quit purchasing from ebay for other reasons but it is a good change.
I'm sorry that you took my opinions as argumentative instead of trying to give insight into why a Christian would think that way. As to it being worthy or not it depends on your point of view. It's not worthy to you but it's worthy to some. Sorry it's still your opinion as to what is worthy. Scientific fact does not give you the authority it remains scientific fact that must be applied and there's still valid points to all sides of it's application.
Many passages speak of God forming the child in the womb (Job 31:15, Psalm 139:15, Isaiah 44:2, Isaiah 49:5 etc). So to a christian taking the text at face value the moment of conception (maybe when the zygote attaches to the uterus) is when God starts His work. Blob or not if unimpeded it will develop into a human under normal circumstances. IMHO the line is drawn by God and He will ultimately decide if what was done was right or wrong. Still in a free society Christians cannot forcefully impose their will on others. Jesus certainly never did. Sure Christians are free to encourage people to accept their ideas but that needs to be followed by a genuine sincerity not outright hypocrisy.
But like someone else touched on a woman that loses their child still gets sad weather it was in the first, second, or third trimester. So I'm going to have to disagree with it being equal to a hamburger patty.
But many denominations do try to interpret in context and in light of the culture they were written in. Not to mention that the old law (old covenant/testament) was fulfilled after Christ's death and resurrection. That started the new covenant/testament which has no real limitations on what you eat. This isn't to say that there aren't valid teaching in the old testament but that the rules and regulations for ceremonial cleanliness don't apply anymore since there is no longer a need for sacrificing to cleanse sin. Abortion is murder in the eyes of the church because in most cases the church believes that life begins as conception or when the zygote attaches to the uterus. Many passages speak of God forming the child in the womb (Job 31:15, Psalm 139:15, Isaiah 44:2, Isaiah 49:5 etc).
I agree that many do take the scriptures out of context and try to twist them into what they want to hear not what is actually meant. This is the folly of man trying to interpret scripture outside of other scripture.
Don't kid yourself. There's plenty of evidence that is counterintuitive to evolution and even outright against it. Soft tissue and DNA surviving millions of years is but one example against the long time needed for evolution. Not to mention never having observed a mutation creating new genetic information or the math problem associated with sequential mutations needed to create a new structure. We can't see into the past to know what happened so we use what we can observe today to extrapolate the past correlated with what we dig up. There's still faith involved with either path you take because we do not have all the data and only a short observation time to work with. And no matter how you slice it laboratory conditions are not able to precisely replicate what we think happened in the past.
I agree that we don't need to force religious beliefs into the classroom but what's wrong with presenting evolution as still a theory and not a fact? What's wrong with showing it's shortcomings with hopes that they can be explained or refuted? Isn't that what science is really about?
The raw calculation won't have a problem but maybe in displaying/storing the amortization table there could be a hiccup. You're not going to get out of your mortgage or anything but it's interesting none the less.
The individual with sickle cell cannot produce regular blood cells. that information is lost. their reproductive cells can carry on the information to an offspring (if both alleles are present). Still the individual will not produce regular blood cells.
The article was to show that the scientific community is not in agreement as to how evolution happens and how to explain it so it cannot be a fact for if it were it would be the law of evolution. We know we came from somewhere but we cannot prove for a fact where and how. At least yet.
Actually you seem to be arguing for natural selection which we can observe happening.
You have to setup your meaning of evolution. Do you mean a non directional change or do you mean we ultimately came from molecules that came together to start life?
The mutations you give are results of lost information. Bactiera mutates and loses information and becomes resistant to a drug. The protein that comes from this mutated DNA is resistant to the antibodies but can not perform it's original function as efficient as before. Sickle cell anemia is a loss of information that has a byproduct of being resistant to malaria. It does not carry oxygen as well as standard blood cells. Both of these examples help the host live on but at a loss of information. This is opposite of what molecules to man evolution needs.
So the rub is this so called 'no question--none whatsoever--that evolution takes place'. There is not a defining fact that evolution happens just evidence that can be interpreted. Even evolutionists are debating weather evolution happens in the Darwinian sense. http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
"Out of curiosity, why the over 50 exemption?"
The article says that it's to give states time to play 'catchup' and that people over 50 are unlikely to be terrorists or con artists.
They still, however, need to be 'randomly' stripped searched at the airport.
Slashdot Mirror
So you assume I have lots of windows and poorly insulated walls to make your point?
It would cost me 4-5 times as much to have less than half the living space for me to live 'in the city'. Cost of upkeep would be about the same. Sure I would save a little on my electric bill because I now have less space I now have to contend with noisy neighbors, parking in the open around other cars, no way to enjoy some of my hobbies. I now have to pay to store my extra things. Worry about how loud I'm playing my movies, games, instruments etc.
Oh and guess what, they still have to ship the stuff I use and the food I eat to the closest store.
I don't look at my house as an investment. I look at my house as a nice way to not have to be confined. I don't have to worry about being really quiet or be bugged by the upstairs/downstairs neighbors making noise. I don't have to worry about a neighbor smoking and the smoke floating into my living space. I can have a nice sized living room to invite friends over and a large driveway so they can park for free. If I am so inclined I could put in a swimming pool that I can have for myself whenever I want. I can go to my shed in the back and build what I want out of wood, metal etc. I can modify my house to suit my needs. I can add a room if I have another kid instead of having to move all my stuff to a new building. Not to mention being able to have free storage space. The fact that it may grow in value doesn't really make much of a difference to those of us that researched where we want to be and don't spend more than we make.
So they can encounter an armed criminal unarmed? That makes as much sense as taking a spacewalk without a spacesuit.
possibly, but under such stress it's easier to shoot first then ask questions which is why it's smart to not have anything in your hands and to not make sudden, quick, jerky movements. Cops have to deal with nefarious people daily and must be on their toes at all times. If you have something in your hand and you turn and point it at a cop you should expect to die of acute lead poisoning fairly soon and be thankful if you just get yelled at.
If you want to say that God created things perfectly then yes they are at odds. If you say God created and evolution is the mechanism used then death and sin was part of God's "perfect" creation.
This is where the creationists and evolutionists are at odds. One starts with the Biblical framework and one starts with a non-Biblical framework. One is taking the data in light of scripture and one is assuming slow and gradual processes (current rates applied to the past). Which one is right? I don't think we'll find out anytime soon and in all seriousness the debate is not harming any current *important* scientific work.
* important IMHO is medical research, technology, basically the things that don't rely on understanding long term history or where we came from to give us realistic benefits here and now.
Will I just be able to think "boom headshot" and become 'l33t' at CS?
Just because you may not own the building or the network you still have a basic right to privacy.
If you want to argue that route you can still prove that you own the router, network cable, processor etc. so you still own the last few feet they are trespassing on. Heck renters still have a right to use lethal force against an intruder is many states. So there is a legal leg to stand on.
Regardless privacy is the main concern.
Would that also mean that we can now sue the writers guild for making us fat by keeping us indoors watching TV during the summer instead of out taking care of the lawn? :)
I was wondering more about how the people that design the sets, the camera people, stage hands, makeup people etc. are going to be compensated or how screwed they were when they had no control over it.
I've had issues with two sellers like this. One sent me a game without a CD key and then furnished me with the first quick google search for one. The other sent me an item that wasn't what I bought. Neither would return my emails until I left negative feedback and of course I got negative feedback and a withdrawal request the same day. The bad sellers were using negative feedback on a buyer to push for a withdrawal to keep their record clean. I have quit purchasing from ebay for other reasons but it is a good change.
I'm sorry that you took my opinions as argumentative instead of trying to give insight into why a Christian would think that way. As to it being worthy or not it depends on your point of view. It's not worthy to you but it's worthy to some. Sorry it's still your opinion as to what is worthy. Scientific fact does not give you the authority it remains scientific fact that must be applied and there's still valid points to all sides of it's application.
Many passages speak of God forming the child in the womb (Job 31:15, Psalm 139:15, Isaiah 44:2, Isaiah 49:5 etc). So to a christian taking the text at face value the moment of conception (maybe when the zygote attaches to the uterus) is when God starts His work. Blob or not if unimpeded it will develop into a human under normal circumstances. IMHO the line is drawn by God and He will ultimately decide if what was done was right or wrong. Still in a free society Christians cannot forcefully impose their will on others. Jesus certainly never did. Sure Christians are free to encourage people to accept their ideas but that needs to be followed by a genuine sincerity not outright hypocrisy. But like someone else touched on a woman that loses their child still gets sad weather it was in the first, second, or third trimester. So I'm going to have to disagree with it being equal to a hamburger patty.
I think there's a bit of a difference in "I'm always right" as opposed to "I'm going to kill those that don't think like me". Though IANATerrorist.
But many denominations do try to interpret in context and in light of the culture they were written in. Not to mention that the old law (old covenant/testament) was fulfilled after Christ's death and resurrection. That started the new covenant/testament which has no real limitations on what you eat. This isn't to say that there aren't valid teaching in the old testament but that the rules and regulations for ceremonial cleanliness don't apply anymore since there is no longer a need for sacrificing to cleanse sin. Abortion is murder in the eyes of the church because in most cases the church believes that life begins as conception or when the zygote attaches to the uterus. Many passages speak of God forming the child in the womb (Job 31:15, Psalm 139:15, Isaiah 44:2, Isaiah 49:5 etc). I agree that many do take the scriptures out of context and try to twist them into what they want to hear not what is actually meant. This is the folly of man trying to interpret scripture outside of other scripture.
Don't kid yourself. There's plenty of evidence that is counterintuitive to evolution and even outright against it. Soft tissue and DNA surviving millions of years is but one example against the long time needed for evolution. Not to mention never having observed a mutation creating new genetic information or the math problem associated with sequential mutations needed to create a new structure. We can't see into the past to know what happened so we use what we can observe today to extrapolate the past correlated with what we dig up. There's still faith involved with either path you take because we do not have all the data and only a short observation time to work with. And no matter how you slice it laboratory conditions are not able to precisely replicate what we think happened in the past. I agree that we don't need to force religious beliefs into the classroom but what's wrong with presenting evolution as still a theory and not a fact? What's wrong with showing it's shortcomings with hopes that they can be explained or refuted? Isn't that what science is really about?
You must be pretty new. This is slashdot. Which incidentally is much better at protecting against sex than any condom.
The raw calculation won't have a problem but maybe in displaying/storing the amortization table there could be a hiccup. You're not going to get out of your mortgage or anything but it's interesting none the less.
You mean NCIS isn't real?!!??
...is sadly dying. But it's ok because if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide right?
I was wondering how the first comment could be redundant. Or am I missing something?
I was going to blame the Macy's Parade.
The individual with sickle cell cannot produce regular blood cells. that information is lost. their reproductive cells can carry on the information to an offspring (if both alleles are present). Still the individual will not produce regular blood cells. The article was to show that the scientific community is not in agreement as to how evolution happens and how to explain it so it cannot be a fact for if it were it would be the law of evolution. We know we came from somewhere but we cannot prove for a fact where and how. At least yet.
Actually you seem to be arguing for natural selection which we can observe happening. You have to setup your meaning of evolution. Do you mean a non directional change or do you mean we ultimately came from molecules that came together to start life? The mutations you give are results of lost information. Bactiera mutates and loses information and becomes resistant to a drug. The protein that comes from this mutated DNA is resistant to the antibodies but can not perform it's original function as efficient as before. Sickle cell anemia is a loss of information that has a byproduct of being resistant to malaria. It does not carry oxygen as well as standard blood cells. Both of these examples help the host live on but at a loss of information. This is opposite of what molecules to man evolution needs. So the rub is this so called 'no question--none whatsoever--that evolution takes place'. There is not a defining fact that evolution happens just evidence that can be interpreted. Even evolutionists are debating weather evolution happens in the Darwinian sense. http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
"Out of curiosity, why the over 50 exemption?" The article says that it's to give states time to play 'catchup' and that people over 50 are unlikely to be terrorists or con artists. They still, however, need to be 'randomly' stripped searched at the airport.
One corrupt organization investigating another. What could possibly go wrong?