It was an unusual technique. The female hybrids were sterile; the males could interbreed with one of the parent species. After multiple crosses, the resulting hybrids of both genders were fertile, and preferred to interbreed rather than cross-breed with the original parent species.
Link here.
Didn't your parents teach you there are things in life money can't buy?:)
No, MasterCard did. As in,
EP3-E spy plane... $8 million. Hard driver eraser... $125. Remembering to send a fighter escort with the spy plane so that it doesn't get molested over enemy space... Priceless.
Some things, money can't buy. For everything else, there's Deficit Spending^H^HMasterCard.
I think what you're possibly missing here is that RFIDing someone says "I own your body. I can force you to have a piece of my equipment inside of you that allows me to know your whereabouts at any moment -- because you must transmit the right code at all times in order to do business here."
Such a claim is dehumanizing, regardless of its intent. RFID for people is exactly like yellow cards for Jews. The cards had the effect of intimidating and humiliating.
RFID for people is *not* like a visa (the "price of entry into a country") in these ways:
a visa is only required at points of entry and under unusual circumstances, such as being pulled over by the cops. By contrast, RFID for people make it *possible* to survail people at almost all times, simply by sticking readers in discrete locations, like the merchandise protectors in stores. How did you imagine that VeriChip or whoever was proposing to sort the legals from the illegals?
A visa can be surrendered after it has been used. RFID requires surgery to eliminate, or else some kind of electronic wiping. Like most immigrants from Mexico can afford that...
-2 days, actually, for the most recent spoiler. Some jerk had an e-copy of the book, apparently, and put "Snape kills Dumbledore!" in his.sig before the actual publication.
The problem here is that you either don't understand science and it's basis in critical thinking, or are deliberating trying to pass off blind zealotry as rational thought.
I'll come back to this point, but notice that you have no evidence for this broad and inflammatory claim. So far, I've argued that (a) existence of the supernatural cannot be proven by natural means; and (b) that you've made several factual errors in your posts. The first point is broadly agreed to by both atheist and theist scientists and philosophers. The second point is a matter of fact: either one of us is correct, or else neither of us. No blind zealotry. No misunderstanding of science; in fact, I've shown a very standard understanding of science consistent with the "two spheres" approach of Stephen J. Gould.
So at this point, faced with evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, you should retract your accusation according to your own dictum:
Good scientists start questioning their assumptions as soon as there is ANY evidence contradicting them.
I humbly await your apology.
By way of analogy, wouldn't you agree that I'm "anti-religious" if I claim that worship of any kind is a sin?
Yes, I would agree that your claim is anti-religious, because it is a broad rejection of all religion (with the possible exception of Buddhism, a sort of "non-religious religion").
But now, consider the actual beliefs of creationist Christians. Some accept the astronomical evidence for the age of the universe, some don't. Most accept the idea that species evolve, but reject the notion that all species evolved from a common ancestor; others reject both notions. None of them reject, wholesale, the results of chemistry and physics. In short, their beliefs aren't "anti-science", but anti-evolution. They don't reject all of science, but a specific claim of a specific branch of science. Some, but not all, are inconsistent in their understanding of science. I think that's a fair charge to lay at the feet of many creationists. But inconsistency is simply not the same as being "anti-".
If you want to make the broader point, that a good scientist can't be a theist, then you're simply wrong. Historically, manyeminentscientists were theists, and that trendcontinues. Many of my friends and colleagues are Christian professors in various spots around the country: Princeton, USAF Academy, Redlands, Hopkins.
So what's the prize? Well, I hope to persuade you to turn your back on a certain flavor of atheism which holds that atheism is the only possible rational belief. We can call this the "smarter than thou" disease. Those who are afflicted by the disease belief, against the evidence, that all theists are foolish or deluded, and that the smart people are atheists because the evidence for atheism (which amounts to a lack of evidence for theism) is overwhelming.
The problem with this disease is that it is firmly based in unreality. Many bright people are theists; many stupid people are atheists. But those afflicted with the disease cannot handle this uncomfortable fact, so that when one of their own (such as Anthony Flew) becomes a theist, they turn on him and accuse him of senility -- which is, I suppose, the only accusation that makes sense if you believe that atheism is a matter of intelligence.
The most egregious example of the "smarter than thou" disease is the comment made by Dawkins, "religion is a virus of the mind." You might think, in light of the historic examples of very bright religious people, and in light of the foolishness of speaking o
You seem to think it easy to spot when something is "beyond nature." However, a moment's reflection should convince you that we never know when something is "beyond nature"; we can only know that a phenomenon is "within nature."
Even if we did think that we had found something beyond nature would that mean that we *really had* found something supernatural, or just that our knowledge of nature is limited? For early man, lightning seemed to be beyond nature, but of course it wasn't.
Carl Sagan posed a test for the existence of God: if pi, represented in base 11, were to contain a string of 1s and 0s that form a circle when plotted on the right-sized screen, then that would convince him that God really did exist. However, it may turn out to be the case that pi contains any arbitrary string of digits, in which case his test will be satisfied... but for the wrong reason. It would be a natural rather than supernatural satisfaction of the test conditions.
So either way, your epistemology is toast. You cannot prove conclusively that something which seems to be beyond nature actually *is* beyond nature; nor can you prove conclusively that all of the many openquestions in science can in fact be answered by science.
The good scientists know this, which is why relatively few of them, with the exceptions such as Sagan and Dawkins, will make grandiose claims about science demonstrating the non-existence of God.
Specific factual issues:
You're incorrect in claiming that literalism is a 20th century phenomenon. The central point of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, was taken as literal truth by the majority opinion from 1st century until roughly the 18th century (F.C. Baur, I think, was the first, IIRC). Generally speaking, historic theology worked within a combination of literal and allegorical interpretations until the 19th century.
You are wrong to think that the Bible was seen as inaccurate until the 20th century. Even until the late 19th century, the Bible was considered a reliable guide to archaeology. Some still try to use it in that way.
There is no "anti-science movement" in the United States. That term is a scare phrase used to try to link various separate arguments (creationism, flat-earthism, anti-global-warming-is-man's-fault, anti-ozone-layer-is-man's fault, anti-birth-control, anti-vaccination, etc.) into one coherent package. But there is no such coherent package, and there is no "anti-science league" or any recognized leaders of an "anti-science movement." Different individuals have different takes on each of the issues mentioned above, and there is little correlation between one's opinion on one issue (say, creationism) and another issue (say, vaccines).
The term "anti-science" is really just an ad hominem attack in disguise. The term is used to label certain groups so that their arguments against belief X, held by many scientists, can be dismissed out of hand on the grounds that the group in question is just "anti-science." That's a classic ad hominem fallacy. If X is right, then the identity of its adherents and of its detractors is irrelevant.
Face it -- whether or not god exists, every single piece of measurable evidence implies that the universe proceeds in a manner that does not require godly intervention.
Suppose the universe did proceed in a manner that required godly intervention. How would you measure such an intervention? After all, a supernatural being is "beyond nature." So, what sort of observations, taken in a controlled, reproducible, scientific manner, could possibly demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being?
Answer: none, by definition.
So you're faced with this problem. Either (a) the universe does not require God's intervention, and the lack of measurable evidence is consistent with this truth, or (b) the universe does require God's intervention, and the lack of measurable evidence is consistent with this truth.
Hence, "lack of measurable evidence" doesn't prove anything, except that you don't have sensors able to measure God's intervention.
With regard to random processes, you're incorrect at the level of the most basic and truly "random" event: the collapse of wavefunctions into one of multiple possible states. It is true that a group of photons placed in a superposition of two equally likely states will, when measured, collapse to one state or the other with a binomial distribution. It is *false* -- as far as we know -- that some underlying physical process acts as a decision-maker for the photons. Such an underlying physical process would imply the existence of hidden variables, which are generally considered not a valid explanation of quantum phenomena.
If the universe needed constant tinkering, wouldn't that make god an enormous fuck-up? Why couldn't he get it right the first time?
Or an artist who likes to be personally involved with His creation. The problem with that is...?
Intelligent Design and Creationism play a very small role, if any, in the decline. Even biology teachers who teach some form of creationism (I know two) also make sure that students understand the underlying ideas of evolution. To find the problem, you'll have to look elsewhere.
Note from TFA, for example, that the issues cited by the article were,
There was some debate about how to explain the 12th-grade declines. Assistant Secretary of Education Tom Luce said they reflected a national shortage of fully qualified science teachers, especially in poor regions, where physics and chemistry classes are often taught by teachers untrained in those subjects.
and
...the problem is not that universities are failing to train sufficient numbers of science majors or that too few opt for classroom careers, but that about a third of those who accept teaching jobs abandon the profession within five years.
By contrast, young teachers who stick around for five years or more will often be those whose strengths are paperwork rather than teaching.
In other words, the bureaucracy functions unconsciously as a filter that weeds out teaching talent and maintains mediocrity.*
I should note that the article is incomplete, in that it focuses only on teachers -- much of the problem also lies with students and parents. But almost none of the problem can be properly blamed on "Intellgent Design."
* Since I've been around for 14 years, one might suspect me of being mediocre. I hope that "determined" is a better description...
You have a different version of the 70's in your head than I do.
Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course...
Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal which climaxed with the the Watergate tapes, uncovered by Mssrs. Woodward and Bernstein.
But he wasn't impeached. He would have been, of course; articles of impeachment were already being planned. However, he wasn't, so the last President to "fall for this" would have to be Andrew Johnson.
More importantly, Nixon's troubles had very little to do with his role in Vietnam. The country had been unhappy about Vietnam, and they were unhappy with the incident at Kent State (which led to the CSN song about "four dead in Ohio"), but the nation didn't blame Nixon for the war per se.
For one thing, our involvement in Vietnam ramped up under Kennedy and Johnson. For another, Nixon was the one who brought the troops home. Here's a timeline for ya: here.
Nixon did make a couple of unpopular Vietnam decisions, such as the Cambodia and Laos actions, but by '74 when he resigned, the nation understood that the troops were coming home.
Yes, you're being ridiculous.:-) But seriously, see the sig.
And to answer the CP, Christian Fundamentalists do not "eat the body and blood of Christ" every week -- that would be Roman Catholics. Neither Protestant nor Orthodox have any such belief. Google for "transubstantiation", "consubstantiation", "memorialism", "Zwingli", and "the council of Marburg."
And for kicks, you could Google for Celsus, the 2nd century Roman who propagated the cannibalism myth about Christians. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
I for one am not about to move to Washington, D.C. and spend my time listening to Congressional briefings, White House press conferences, etc. to hear news from the horse's mouth. I have a family and a job. I rely on the news media to present information to me that I do not have time to collect for myself... While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions: sure, the article says point A, but I think there's a valid counterpoint B: what are the facts here? Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture.
But why not read from the original sources themselves? It doesn't take *that* much more time to listen to CSPAN radio instead of news or music on the way to work, or to look up actual bills on the appropriate.gov site instead getting the summary from Drudge/CNN/Fox/Kos. I'm very dissatisfied with journalists' "summaries" of news events not simply because of bias but because they seem unable to correctly assess the most important details and communicate them to the public.
Oh and by the way, Windows has a "safe"(well, safer) operating mode in the form of a user account, but nobody uses it because it's a PITA, so everybody stays in supervisor mode and bad things happen.
Except for those of us who spent years on Unix boxes and thought that setting up user accounts was the natural way to configure WinXP...
OK, so here's the weird one... should a PI poem have 3,1,4,1,5 syllables or 3,1,4,1,6 syllables? Or should I write ten PI poems, nine of which have 5 syllables at the end...?
To be a math geek or a physics geek, THAT is the question.
Well, we both agree that "men want sex, women want love" is a non-starter. For one thing, someone ends up marrying the Donald Trumps of the world, and it's not for love.
I also agree that there is a strong but changing historical precedent for men treating women as property. And I agree that some of the behavior described in the OT reflects the view that women are property.
I would however want to make a careful distinction between descriptions and norms, as indicated above. The Bible was written in the context of certain cultures, but does not endorse every attitude within those cultures.
The most interesting case in point is that of polygamy. On the one hand, polygamy is treated as a deviation from the "one-flesh" notion of marriage; on the other, it is regulated (Ex. 21:10) but not prohibited, except indirectly through the commands against adultery and coveting (i.e., how does one get a second wife? By lusting after another woman while married, a clearly prohibited activity). It might even be commanded in the case of "Levirate marriage" (Deut. 25:7 - 10), although the command might be "void where prohibited by law", so to speak.
Putting the two hands together, God does not seem to have been in a hurry to stamp out polygamy *even though* it would have been a natural parallel to the polytheistic practices so richly condemned in the OT. Go figure.
By the time we get to the NT, the situation is clearer -- yet some of the commands of Paul seem to leave a small window of possibility for polygamy even still. Titus 1:6 commands that a pastor is to be "the husband of but one wife" (mias gunaikos anhr). Does that leave the back door open for a non-elder to be a "dua gunaikos anhr"? Doubtful, but weird.
Bottom line: piecing together the intended relationships between men and women out of the Scriptures is very tricky, perhaps because it doesn't seem to have been quite the same obsession as it is with us today.
For a laugh, read this on polygamy.
The behavior *described* in the OT is not necessarily *prescribed.* Just because Solomon had 700 wives doesn't mean that was a good thing. In fact, Solomon is described specifically as "having been led astray", both by the number of wives and their non-Yahweistic religious affiliations. The examples that you describe -- Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Lot, etc. -- are simply descriptions: these men did this. The narrator's point of view concerning their actions cannot be assumed to be endorsement. In fact, the practice of polygamy is viewed neutrally at best, and negatively in most cases.
The commands against adultery are not only mixed in with commands concerning property, but also commands concerning socery, (22:18); bestiality (22:19); idolatry (22:20); and equitable treatment of people (22:21 - 24). By your logic, which seems to assume that verses right next to each other must be about the same topic, then seducing a virgin must be a type of sorcery.
A quick look at Gen. 38 or Proverbs reveals that while men might visit prostitutes, doing so was not a sanctioned behavior.
Malachi 2:13 - 16 indicates that God is displeased with men who abandon their wives because they had violated a covenant promise to remain faithful with them.
The bottom line is that it is impossible to sustain the view that adultery was only forbidden to men, as you originally claimed, or that adultery was viewed as a property crime. Marriage is seen in covenant terms, not property terms, throughout the OT and especially in Gen. 2, Hosea, and Malachi.
You may be confused because marriage involved a large number of property issues, many of which are regulated in the OT. But that doesn't mean that marriage *was* a "property issue."
I'll let you do your own research on the issue of adultery. Generally, the man was held to be at fault unless the woman was in a position to do something, and didn't. (Note therefore that the woman in John 8 is being treated particularly abombinably, a point that Jesus underscores with his famous "he who is without sin cast the first stone.")
The dowry is paid to the father because he is the one who holds it in trust until the wedding, at which point it would be given to the husband. But *that* issue is one of women's property rights, which were pretty much dismal until recently. The issue of sex out of wedlock is, as I indicated, charged against the man rather than the woman.
That passage sounds a LOT like "you break it, you buy it" to me.
Cynical, but with a grain of truth. Certainly, the woman was seen to have lost something by being seduced (See also Proverbs for women who are seducers...). But the main point, again, is that the man was culpable rather than the woman.
You do know that historically (yes, in the bible too) the injunction against sex out of wedlock is only against women right? Adultery was a property crime -- the taking of another man's wife (the wife being the property).
Not in the Bible, at least:
And if a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. Ex. 22:16,17 NASB.
No penalty for the woman, notice. And "property" is an issue only insomuch as the man has to compensate the woman for her lost attractiveness as a marriage match.
Okama:We've got the world's only GMP master cell bank of human embryonic stem cells with lines that are fully qualified for human use which, by the way, are two of Bush's approved lines. So the stuff you hear published that all of those lines are irrevocably contaminated with mouse materials and could never be used in people -- hogwash. If you know how to grow them, they're fine.
Perhaps some of the propaganda is anti-ethics in the name of science, poisoning the well towards those who have ethical objections and rallying the guys in lab-coats to oppose the "Bible-beaters"?
Slashdot Mirror
It was an unusual technique. The female hybrids were sterile; the males could interbreed with one of the parent species. After multiple crosses, the resulting hybrids of both genders were fertile, and preferred to interbreed rather than cross-breed with the original parent species. Link here.
EP3-E spy plane
Hard driver eraser
Remembering to send a fighter escort with the spy plane so that it doesn't get molested over enemy space
Some things, money can't buy. For everything else, there's Deficit Spending^H^HMasterCard.
Water expands with heating *and* cooling, with a maximum density (hence minimum volume for a given mass) at 4oC. See chart here.
Such a claim is dehumanizing, regardless of its intent. RFID for people is exactly like yellow cards for Jews. The cards had the effect of intimidating and humiliating.
RFID for people is *not* like a visa (the "price of entry into a country") in these ways:
At least, that's how I remember it.
I'll come back to this point, but notice that you have no evidence for this broad and inflammatory claim. So far, I've argued that (a) existence of the supernatural cannot be proven by natural means; and (b) that you've made several factual errors in your posts. The first point is broadly agreed to by both atheist and theist scientists and philosophers. The second point is a matter of fact: either one of us is correct, or else neither of us. No blind zealotry. No misunderstanding of science; in fact, I've shown a very standard understanding of science consistent with the "two spheres" approach of Stephen J. Gould.
So at this point, faced with evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, you should retract your accusation according to your own dictum:
Good scientists start questioning their assumptions as soon as there is ANY evidence contradicting them.
I humbly await your apology.
By way of analogy, wouldn't you agree that I'm "anti-religious" if I claim that worship of any kind is a sin?
Yes, I would agree that your claim is anti-religious, because it is a broad rejection of all religion (with the possible exception of Buddhism, a sort of "non-religious religion").
But now, consider the actual beliefs of creationist Christians. Some accept the astronomical evidence for the age of the universe, some don't. Most accept the idea that species evolve, but reject the notion that all species evolved from a common ancestor; others reject both notions. None of them reject, wholesale, the results of chemistry and physics. In short, their beliefs aren't "anti-science", but anti-evolution. They don't reject all of science, but a specific claim of a specific branch of science. Some, but not all, are inconsistent in their understanding of science. I think that's a fair charge to lay at the feet of many creationists. But inconsistency is simply not the same as being "anti-".
If you want to make the broader point, that a good scientist can't be a theist, then you're simply wrong. Historically, many eminent scientists were theists, and that trend continues. Many of my friends and colleagues are Christian professors in various spots around the country: Princeton, USAF Academy, Redlands, Hopkins.
So what's the prize? Well, I hope to persuade you to turn your back on a certain flavor of atheism which holds that atheism is the only possible rational belief. We can call this the "smarter than thou" disease. Those who are afflicted by the disease belief, against the evidence, that all theists are foolish or deluded, and that the smart people are atheists because the evidence for atheism (which amounts to a lack of evidence for theism) is overwhelming.
The problem with this disease is that it is firmly based in unreality. Many bright people are theists; many stupid people are atheists. But those afflicted with the disease cannot handle this uncomfortable fact, so that when one of their own (such as Anthony Flew) becomes a theist, they turn on him and accuse him of senility -- which is, I suppose, the only accusation that makes sense if you believe that atheism is a matter of intelligence.
The most egregious example of the "smarter than thou" disease is the comment made by Dawkins, "religion is a virus of the mind." You might think, in light of the historic examples of very bright religious people, and in light of the foolishness of speaking o
Even if we did think that we had found something beyond nature would that mean that we *really had* found something supernatural, or just that our knowledge of nature is limited? For early man, lightning seemed to be beyond nature, but of course it wasn't.
Carl Sagan posed a test for the existence of God: if pi, represented in base 11, were to contain a string of 1s and 0s that form a circle when plotted on the right-sized screen, then that would convince him that God really did exist. However, it may turn out to be the case that pi contains any arbitrary string of digits, in which case his test will be satisfied ... but for the wrong reason. It would be a natural rather than supernatural satisfaction of the test conditions.
So either way, your epistemology is toast. You cannot prove conclusively that something which seems to be beyond nature actually *is* beyond nature; nor can you prove conclusively that all of the many open questions in science can in fact be answered by science.
The good scientists know this, which is why relatively few of them, with the exceptions such as Sagan and Dawkins, will make grandiose claims about science demonstrating the non-existence of God.
Specific factual issues:
The term "anti-science" is really just an ad hominem attack in disguise. The term is used to label certain groups so that their arguments against belief X, held by many scientists, can be dismissed out of hand on the grounds that the group in question is just "anti-science." That's a classic ad hominem fallacy. If X is right, then the identity of its adherents and of its detractors is irrelevant.
Suppose the universe did proceed in a manner that required godly intervention. How would you measure such an intervention? After all, a supernatural being is "beyond nature." So, what sort of observations, taken in a controlled, reproducible, scientific manner, could possibly demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being?
Answer: none, by definition.
So you're faced with this problem. Either (a) the universe does not require God's intervention, and the lack of measurable evidence is consistent with this truth, or (b) the universe does require God's intervention, and the lack of measurable evidence is consistent with this truth.
Hence, "lack of measurable evidence" doesn't prove anything, except that you don't have sensors able to measure God's intervention.
With regard to random processes, you're incorrect at the level of the most basic and truly "random" event: the collapse of wavefunctions into one of multiple possible states. It is true that a group of photons placed in a superposition of two equally likely states will, when measured, collapse to one state or the other with a binomial distribution. It is *false* -- as far as we know -- that some underlying physical process acts as a decision-maker for the photons. Such an underlying physical process would imply the existence of hidden variables, which are generally considered not a valid explanation of quantum phenomena.
If the universe needed constant tinkering, wouldn't that make god an enormous fuck-up? Why couldn't he get it right the first time?
Or an artist who likes to be personally involved with His creation. The problem with that is ...?
Note from TFA, for example, that the issues cited by the article were,
and
Speaking as a physics teacher, I fully agree with that assessment. Young teachers who are motivated and talented hit brick walls like "I can't actually afford to buy a house" or "the administration cares more about paperwork than learning." As result, they leave the profession before they ever develop their teaching effectively.
By contrast, young teachers who stick around for five years or more will often be those whose strengths are paperwork rather than teaching.
In other words, the bureaucracy functions unconsciously as a filter that weeds out teaching talent and maintains mediocrity.*
I should note that the article is incomplete, in that it focuses only on teachers -- much of the problem also lies with students and parents. But almost none of the problem can be properly blamed on "Intellgent Design."
* Since I've been around for 14 years, one might suspect me of being mediocre. I hope that "determined" is a better description...
602 214 150 000 000 000 000 000
considered small?!
True. Good memory. I remember the song as a much more effective expression of raw rage than any heavy-metal song today.
Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course ...
Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal which climaxed with the the Watergate tapes, uncovered by Mssrs. Woodward and Bernstein.
But he wasn't impeached. He would have been, of course; articles of impeachment were already being planned. However, he wasn't, so the last President to "fall for this" would have to be Andrew Johnson.
More importantly, Nixon's troubles had very little to do with his role in Vietnam. The country had been unhappy about Vietnam, and they were unhappy with the incident at Kent State (which led to the CSN song about "four dead in Ohio"), but the nation didn't blame Nixon for the war per se.
For one thing, our involvement in Vietnam ramped up under Kennedy and Johnson. For another, Nixon was the one who brought the troops home. Here's a timeline for ya: here.
Nixon did make a couple of unpopular Vietnam decisions, such as the Cambodia and Laos actions, but by '74 when he resigned, the nation understood that the troops were coming home.
And to answer the CP, Christian Fundamentalists do not "eat the body and blood of Christ" every week -- that would be Roman Catholics. Neither Protestant nor Orthodox have any such belief. Google for "transubstantiation", "consubstantiation", "memorialism", "Zwingli", and "the council of Marburg."
And for kicks, you could Google for Celsus, the 2nd century Roman who propagated the cannibalism myth about Christians. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
So there it is ... no entering the house without permission, your other arguments not withstanding.
Sad but true. The vast majority of your legislation is written by 20-something staffers.
But why not read from the original sources themselves? It doesn't take *that* much more time to listen to CSPAN radio instead of news or music on the way to work, or to look up actual bills on the appropriate .gov site instead getting the summary from Drudge/CNN/Fox/Kos. I'm very dissatisfied with journalists' "summaries" of news events not simply because of bias but because they seem unable to correctly assess the most important details and communicate them to the public.
Except for those of us who spent years on Unix boxes and thought that setting up user accounts was the natural way to configure WinXP...
Then you never had me. Fee and Pie. Not only is it slightly more accurate, but it also helps keep one straight when using both in the same equation.
To be a math geek or a physics geek, THAT is the question.
I also agree that there is a strong but changing historical precedent for men treating women as property. And I agree that some of the behavior described in the OT reflects the view that women are property.
I would however want to make a careful distinction between descriptions and norms, as indicated above. The Bible was written in the context of certain cultures, but does not endorse every attitude within those cultures.
The most interesting case in point is that of polygamy. On the one hand, polygamy is treated as a deviation from the "one-flesh" notion of marriage; on the other, it is regulated (Ex. 21:10) but not prohibited, except indirectly through the commands against adultery and coveting (i.e., how does one get a second wife? By lusting after another woman while married, a clearly prohibited activity). It might even be commanded in the case of "Levirate marriage" (Deut. 25:7 - 10), although the command might be "void where prohibited by law", so to speak.
Putting the two hands together, God does not seem to have been in a hurry to stamp out polygamy *even though* it would have been a natural parallel to the polytheistic practices so richly condemned in the OT. Go figure.
By the time we get to the NT, the situation is clearer -- yet some of the commands of Paul seem to leave a small window of possibility for polygamy even still. Titus 1:6 commands that a pastor is to be "the husband of but one wife" (mias gunaikos anhr). Does that leave the back door open for a non-elder to be a "dua gunaikos anhr"? Doubtful, but weird.
Bottom line: piecing together the intended relationships between men and women out of the Scriptures is very tricky, perhaps because it doesn't seem to have been quite the same obsession as it is with us today. For a laugh, read this on polygamy.
The bottom line is that it is impossible to sustain the view that adultery was only forbidden to men, as you originally claimed, or that adultery was viewed as a property crime. Marriage is seen in covenant terms, not property terms, throughout the OT and especially in Gen. 2, Hosea, and Malachi.
You may be confused because marriage involved a large number of property issues, many of which are regulated in the OT. But that doesn't mean that marriage *was* a "property issue."
The dowry is paid to the father because he is the one who holds it in trust until the wedding, at which point it would be given to the husband. But *that* issue is one of women's property rights, which were pretty much dismal until recently. The issue of sex out of wedlock is, as I indicated, charged against the man rather than the woman.
That passage sounds a LOT like "you break it, you buy it" to me.
Cynical, but with a grain of truth. Certainly, the woman was seen to have lost something by being seduced (See also Proverbs for women who are seducers ...). But the main point, again, is that the man was culpable rather than the woman.
Not in the Bible, at least:
And if a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. Ex. 22:16,17 NASB.
No penalty for the woman, notice. And "property" is an issue only insomuch as the man has to compensate the woman for her lost attractiveness as a marriage match.
The "God-shaped hole" quote is from Pascal's Pensees.
Okama:We've got the world's only GMP master cell bank of human embryonic stem cells with lines that are fully qualified for human use which, by the way, are two of Bush's approved lines. So the stuff you hear published that all of those lines are irrevocably contaminated with mouse materials and could never be used in people -- hogwash. If you know how to grow them, they're fine.
Perhaps some of the propaganda is anti-ethics in the name of science, poisoning the well towards those who have ethical objections and rallying the guys in lab-coats to oppose the "Bible-beaters"?
Not that anyone does that on slashdot...