Going retroactively in time, at some point in history, even per mainline evolution, you must have a line of demarcation where "before that", the hominids were "not human". Correct? Do you then ascribe to that state before that as having the full complement of "human rights"?
Secondly: I understand you actually have no scientific reason to differentiate yourself from the biological continuum -even now-, and have no argument supporting that you have any "rights" -now-, other than by using theistic arguments. Does this concern you?
What you can do is, to borrow an equivalent term from a rather-knowledgable Jewish person, "become grafted onto the tree of life". A person knowledgable enough to tell you how to do that should be well within reach.
At the start its OK, but things have changed and now theirs a law against it?
You've provided no backing for the assertion the bible says its "OK" under any circumstances at any time.
If you are talking about Adam and Eve, see my previous post regarding that.
As a general statement, though, provide what you are talking about that has moral absolutes applying to all time that you are attempting to compare the bible negatively relative to. What is this forever-unchanging-regardless-of-context moral system of which you speak?
Contrary to what your local pastor may have told you, the bible says no such thing. Cain's wife was one such member of the pre-existing human society that existed outside of the Garden. The creation of Eve is stated clearly to be performed on an entirely different allegorical "day" than human females per se.
Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says.
There is much more to be said here, and much more potential insight to be gained, but since I doubt you are interested in more than the immediate question specifically insofar as it helps you reject theism and no farther, I'll leave that for another day.
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6
I suggest you learn to differentiate a book recounting that something occurred, with the book advocating what occurred. Otherwise you're going to get very confused thinking WW2 historians must be advocating Naziism by mentioning it in their books.
There have been several reports that the outage is causing hosted DNS to fail, leading to a number of unresolvable websites.
Confirmed here. DNS resolution was down for about an hour this morning for our domains registered with Network Solutions, no problems with domains registered elsewhere.
The issue isn't that denying evolution means denying bacteria evolve, though there are many who do, and refuse medication because praying to god will fix it unless he has a Greater Plan for it.
Let's go with the "back claims with evidence" model here. Show some evidence of these "many" (or even one) who would deny bacteria evolve.
Are you saying there's only a particular subgroup that makes medically ill-advised choices? I'm not sure what your point is here. Similarly, even if an overwhelming percentage of, say, atheists would say a fellow atheist should get a given treatment regardless of cost, one decides for themselves it is, say, "too expensive", that speaks to the atheist viewpoint?
And no, it is in no way the case that denying "macro-evolution" denies "micro-evolution". Watch this:
I deny "macro-evolution".
I do not deny "micro-evolution".
Seems the fabric of reality did not split apart with the impossible conjunction of statements.
Let's tempt fate and try again...
I deny Mark won the state lottery five times in a row.
I don't deny Mark won the office hockey pool.
Contrary to what you might wish to tell yourself, there are essentially no Americans who don't "acknowledge evolution's existence".
I challenge you to find one who will bat an eye at the statement that bacteria evolve. That would be the meaning of your statement, and your statement is erroneous.
What is true is that a number of Americans do not believe evolution is -exclusively- causally creditable for human existence. Not really the same issue though, since to claim this (or make further peculiarly-consistent metaphysical inferences) is an untestable and unscientific non-sequitur anyway.
The wider challenge, though, is that this statement from the summary...
"...we all remain continuously at risk as our last line of antibiotics is wasted on animals."
from your apparent worldview, becomes meaningless in its objection to anything being "wasted on animals". There is thereby no distinction scientifically (and hence, from your view, any distinction at all) with the "we".
Understood. Same answer there. Your wholly-subjective "objections" notwithstanding.
I'd personally prefer that all eyes were blue. That'd just be me making something up, rather than anything that would be a requirement per any standard, though.
My particular application requirements for your Knees 2.0 are that they gradually increase in size from initial deployment in a 12 inch vertical system, and remain appropriate during stepwise modification toward a 6 foot vertical system with corresponding multiples of mass, without at any point losing functionality, or requiring further human interaction while re-optimizing for the changes in scale.
OK, that's not the only thing that's hard to believe. I also have trouble believing the NSA and Booz Allen Hamilton thought a computer security guy in Hawaii needed secret documents about the bugging of embassies and other intelligence operations he had nothing to do with. In short, the utter incompetence of the NSA and its contractors about keeping secrets seems to have gone completely missing.
My guess would be it was a case of bypassing the established security procedures (one could at least hope there were such in place) purely for questions of convenience. It would hardly be the first time in my experience that after a few rounds between Management and Dev/IT of "I can't complete Task X you've given me until I get Access Y enabled from Group Z" that the blanket directive is made to give Group N access to everything that could possibly be needed going-forward.
Not that it excuses it, but this is probably a case of the malice-versus-incompetence question being driven by "getting the work done quickly" as the rather banal overriding factor.
(other than make encryption useless within a human lifetime)
Not sure about that. Though qubits are great for prime factorization (the one-way function upon which mainstream cryptography relies, and breaks if it becomes no longer in practical terms one-way), I'm not sure that it would help for, say, one-time pads or chained-XOR encryption methods (notably, though trivially simple to implement, IIRC using it immediately disqualified an encryption system from being legally exportable). I think in those cases you end up with the quantum algorithm not finding the actual message out of all the possible messages the data could represent, but all the possible messages the message could have been.
I'll now await correction from an actual specialist in the field...
I know intimately what Christ said and taught, that has nothing to do with what Christians believe and do. And his teachings are certainly not being followed in any large organized churches.
Neat. Okay, what do I believe and do? Since you've got those broad psychic powers, you may as well show them off with someone specific.
I'll do one better. I'll define "counterfeiters". They are people gaining personally from generation of money out of thin air, with no work-product element to its existence.
Particular, more technology-driven types can be referred to as "virtual counterfeiting" or "fractional reserve banking", as an arbitrary choice of terminology.
Investing said counterfeit funds at massive scales leads to a bubble, wherein we have "more money chasing the same goods". The inevitable results of the disparity between the counterfeit-funds speculative value and the actual value leads to the collapse. The supposed blame of the "mortgage you can't really afford" is a red-herring. The reason it can't be afforded (and the temptation for the risk) is due to the counterfeit-money influx in the first place, for which the "average person" has neither the ability nor the actuality to have perpetrated.
The fact that you don't understand something, doesn't mean no one else does. Especially so when you are merely -pretending- not to understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
I highly recommend gaining the ability to discern real qualifications.
For a surprising range of reasons.
The Spelling Diploma's still in the mail?
A couple things here.
Going retroactively in time, at some point in history, even per mainline evolution, you must have a line of demarcation where "before that", the hominids were "not human". Correct? Do you then ascribe to that state before that as having the full complement of "human rights"?
Secondly: I understand you actually have no scientific reason to differentiate yourself from the biological continuum -even now-, and have no argument supporting that you have any "rights" -now-, other than by using theistic arguments. Does this concern you?
What you can do is, to borrow an equivalent term from a rather-knowledgable Jewish person, "become grafted onto the tree of life". A person knowledgable enough to tell you how to do that should be well within reach.
And your qualifications to pronounce "HERECY" would be...?
Well, as it's said...
Evil lies even when it tells the truth.
If you contemplated this question with more productive intentions, though, you might find some surprising insights not far afield.
At the start its OK, but things have changed and now theirs a law against it?
You've provided no backing for the assertion the bible says its "OK" under any circumstances at any time.
If you are talking about Adam and Eve, see my previous post regarding that.
As a general statement, though, provide what you are talking about that has moral absolutes applying to all time that you are attempting to compare the bible negatively relative to. What is this forever-unchanging-regardless-of-context moral system of which you speak?
They were not the first two humans.
Contrary to what your local pastor may have told you, the bible says no such thing. Cain's wife was one such member of the pre-existing human society that existed outside of the Garden. The creation of Eve is stated clearly to be performed on an entirely different allegorical "day" than human females per se.
Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says.
There is much more to be said here, and much more potential insight to be gained, but since I doubt you are interested in more than the immediate question specifically insofar as it helps you reject theism and no farther, I'll leave that for another day.
Sorry, no.
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6
I suggest you learn to differentiate a book recounting that something occurred, with the book advocating what occurred. Otherwise you're going to get very confused thinking WW2 historians must be advocating Naziism by mentioning it in their books.
Thus, MIRVs.
... one that possibly even started on Mars or somewhere else.
Science.
There have been several reports that the outage is causing hosted DNS to fail, leading to a number of unresolvable websites.
Confirmed here. DNS resolution was down for about an hour this morning for our domains registered with Network Solutions, no problems with domains registered elsewhere.
"So, anything else you don't believe in?"
-- Steve Fox / Robert Downey Jr., The Soloist
The issue isn't that denying evolution means denying bacteria evolve, though there are many who do, and refuse medication because praying to god will fix it unless he has a Greater Plan for it.
Let's go with the "back claims with evidence" model here. Show some evidence of these "many" (or even one) who would deny bacteria evolve.
Are you saying there's only a particular subgroup that makes medically ill-advised choices? I'm not sure what your point is here. Similarly, even if an overwhelming percentage of, say, atheists would say a fellow atheist should get a given treatment regardless of cost, one decides for themselves it is, say, "too expensive", that speaks to the atheist viewpoint?
And no, it is in no way the case that denying "macro-evolution" denies "micro-evolution". Watch this:
I deny "macro-evolution".
I do not deny "micro-evolution".
Seems the fabric of reality did not split apart with the impossible conjunction of statements.
Let's tempt fate and try again...
I deny Mark won the state lottery five times in a row.
I don't deny Mark won the office hockey pool.
Still nothing. Interesting.
Contrary to what you might wish to tell yourself, there are essentially no Americans who don't "acknowledge evolution's existence".
I challenge you to find one who will bat an eye at the statement that bacteria evolve. That would be the meaning of your statement, and your statement is erroneous.
What is true is that a number of Americans do not believe evolution is -exclusively- causally creditable for human existence. Not really the same issue though, since to claim this (or make further peculiarly-consistent metaphysical inferences) is an untestable and unscientific non-sequitur anyway.
The wider challenge, though, is that this statement from the summary...
"...we all remain continuously at risk as our last line of antibiotics is wasted on animals."
from your apparent worldview, becomes meaningless in its objection to anything being "wasted on animals". There is thereby no distinction scientifically (and hence, from your view, any distinction at all) with the "we".
We're rolling that into the Cloud solution.
Understood. Same answer there. Your wholly-subjective "objections" notwithstanding.
I'd personally prefer that all eyes were blue. That'd just be me making something up, rather than anything that would be a requirement per any standard, though.
Evolution called, with its answer to your question.
"It works. Nothing more is necessary. Case closed."
My particular application requirements for your Knees 2.0 are that they gradually increase in size from initial deployment in a 12 inch vertical system, and remain appropriate during stepwise modification toward a 6 foot vertical system with corresponding multiples of mass, without at any point losing functionality, or requiring further human interaction while re-optimizing for the changes in scale.
How's your option looking for this?
OK, that's not the only thing that's hard to believe. I also have trouble believing the NSA and Booz Allen Hamilton thought a computer security guy in Hawaii needed secret documents about the bugging of embassies and other intelligence operations he had nothing to do with. In short, the utter incompetence of the NSA and its contractors about keeping secrets seems to have gone completely missing.
My guess would be it was a case of bypassing the established security procedures (one could at least hope there were such in place) purely for questions of convenience. It would hardly be the first time in my experience that after a few rounds between Management and Dev/IT of "I can't complete Task X you've given me until I get Access Y enabled from Group Z" that the blanket directive is made to give Group N access to everything that could possibly be needed going-forward.
Not that it excuses it, but this is probably a case of the malice-versus-incompetence question being driven by "getting the work done quickly" as the rather banal overriding factor.
(other than make encryption useless within a human lifetime)
Not sure about that. Though qubits are great for prime factorization (the one-way function upon which mainstream cryptography relies, and breaks if it becomes no longer in practical terms one-way), I'm not sure that it would help for, say, one-time pads or chained-XOR encryption methods (notably, though trivially simple to implement, IIRC using it immediately disqualified an encryption system from being legally exportable). I think in those cases you end up with the quantum algorithm not finding the actual message out of all the possible messages the data could represent, but all the possible messages the message could have been.
I'll now await correction from an actual specialist in the field...
Zippicamiknicks for all!
Especially the ones who have the delusion that they are using the word "delusion" correctly.
Fortunately, that one's easy to treat. Just show them the actual definition from the DSM.
I know intimately what Christ said and taught, that has nothing to do with what Christians believe and do. And his teachings are certainly not being followed in any large organized churches.
Neat. Okay, what do I believe and do? Since you've got those broad psychic powers, you may as well show them off with someone specific.
I'll do one better. I'll define "counterfeiters". They are people gaining personally from generation of money out of thin air, with no work-product element to its existence.
Particular, more technology-driven types can be referred to as "virtual counterfeiting" or "fractional reserve banking", as an arbitrary choice of terminology.
Investing said counterfeit funds at massive scales leads to a bubble, wherein we have "more money chasing the same goods". The inevitable results of the disparity between the counterfeit-funds speculative value and the actual value leads to the collapse. The supposed blame of the "mortgage you can't really afford" is a red-herring. The reason it can't be afforded (and the temptation for the risk) is due to the counterfeit-money influx in the first place, for which the "average person" has neither the ability nor the actuality to have perpetrated.
The fact that you don't understand something, doesn't mean no one else does. Especially so when you are merely -pretending- not to understand it.
Creationism does not help you make predictions that correlate with reality.
I'd like to predict the upper-bound lifespan of man for the next 2000 years.
Genesis has been correct (i.e. "correlating with reality"), for over 2000 years now and counting, over billions of future data points.
Next.