If you can name ONE place on this entire planet that was NOT covered with water at one time, then you could say there was not a global flood. If you look at a globe even today, you would see that three fourths of this planet is covered with water even still. If you flattened out the earth, it would be covered uniformly to over a mile with water. We know that the land masses of Earth are still moving up and down and along the surface. Apparently, this movement was much greater in the past.
Furthermore, the quantities of water in the mantle of the earth could far exceed that in the crust and the oceans combined. There is some evidence of this here:
Since it is rather difficult to put seismometers on the bottom of the oceans, the evidence is confined mostly to the parts of the mantle which underlies the large land the masses of the earth. There is no reason to believe that the mantle which underlies the oceans contains proportionately less water. The Bible mentions to sources of water for the flood. One was from above in the form of rain and the other was from below. We are told that the fountains of the great deep broke open and flooded the Earth. It is of course speculation to determine what may have caused all that water or a significant portion of it to well up out of the mantle and then a return. If a sponge saturated with water is squeezed, the water will come out of it, but returned once the pressure is eased. It is possible, although unknown and unknowable, that a large gravitational object, such as a planet sized body passed close to the earth, putting the gravitational squeeze on the planet. In short, there is evidence that there was indeed a worldwide flood. It is certainly not impossible, judging from the amount of water available.
There is no way to make a fossil by any known as slow, gradual process. When an organism dies, it immediately begins to decay never making a fossil. To make a fossil, all microorganisms also must be immediately killed. Only a sudden catastrophe can do this.
It is clear to me that you have never read the biblical account of the flood even once. If you had, you would have noticed that Noah did not go out to collect animals and that the word species is not used.
We humans intensely dislike sudden events beyond our control, rather thinking that current processes can always be extrapolated into the past. We know from events, such as the eruption of Mount St. Helens, that geological processes, specifically petrification can take place in a very short amount of time. The Toutle River carved a miniature version of the Grand Canyon in hours, as the snow waters melted by the eruption raged through the canyon, obliterating everything in its path and transporting millions of tons of silt, rock, trees and other things in its way.
How do historians judge the accuracy or fiction of ancient records? Can written historical accounts, no matter where they appear be trusted? Did Alexander the great really live? Were the Roman emperors, such as Nero or Caligula as terrible and corrupt as we read in historical accounts? How credible are the witnesses that wrote these things? There are people today who will deny even the relatively recent history, such as the Holocaust of World War II.
(...Our lifespans, like those of all organisms, are a result of the ability of their DNA to copy itself reliably...)
The lifetime of any organism is determined by the number of times its cells can divide before apoptosis, that is cell death occurs. DNA contains code which tells each cell when to die. In humans, a complete turnover of cells occurs about every seven years. When this code fails or is corrupted, cells divide without limit and that is what we call cancer.
(...The Bible is no more historically accurate...)
So far at least, the Bible is 100% correct in the accuracy of its historical p
....A big change, yes, but it could be good or bad.....
depending on whether all people were either good or bad. Elimination of death would be great if all people were good, never selfish, never doing anything to hurt another or seeking advantage over another human being. The sad fact is that all people are not good, but that there are those among us who will stop at nothing to get their own way and take power over others at all costs. If people like that somehow manage to grab power and never die, they would create hell on earth for the rest of us. Because all people are not good, it is a blessing that death prevents evil from getting the upper hand on all of humanity.
.....Indeed, our lifespans have already been doubled in the last couple of hundred years.....
It is a fallacy to state that human life spans have doubled. They have not. The AVERAGE life span has, because of medical advances, especially in infectious disease treatment and many fewer child deaths today. There were fewer old people back then, but there were some that managed to get to a hundred or slightly more even then. The MAXIMUM life span has not changed much, if at all in the last few thousand years. There are still today, as there have always been, isolated regions of earth, where people have made it to 120-130 years. It is instructive to note, that there are NO practitioners of modern medicine in these areas where some people live inordinately long.
Some cultures, such as those whose histories we find recorded in the Bible, relate that people at one time did live for centuries. These cultures kept extensive, detailed genealogies giving names, lineages and age at death. If we take these records at their face values, the recorded life spans dropped precipitously from centuries down to the maximum of around 120 years, where it is still is today. There is good reason to believe that these records are truthful history. After all what reasons or ulterior motives could we ascribe to the recorders of these histories? Why they would falsely or erroneously write such genealogies?
The question is: Did Methuselah REALLY live 969 years, as recorded, or is that simply untrue, fictitious imaginations? Was Noah a real person in history and did he really die at the ripe old age of 950?
....I wonder if someone with a few hundres years of life experience would....
be able to totally subjugate a nation or even the world if that someone where like Hitler or Stalin or equivalent evil dictator. Since in this world, wealth is a certain measure of power, both of these could accumulate in one or a few people and subjugate the rest with no prospect of it ever ending or at least not been a long time. If people were all good then eternal life would be a great thing. The sad fact is that people are not all good, which makes death blessing because it puts an end to evil.
...humans living that long would grossly exacerbate the current crisis concerning population and resources.....
It seems me that would not be the biggest problem, but that evildoers like Stalin and Hitler and some of the ancient emperors of Rome could still be tyrannizing their subjects if eternal life where possible for humanity today or ever. Can you imagine what this world would be like if extreme evildoers rose to power and were never removed by death? I don't think Hell itself could be any worse than a world like ours without death.
....In the beginning, the universe was cold and barren and empty.....
You and your monster got it wrong. In the beginning there was NO Universe and no time. There was nothing and then it exploded. THAT is modern science? They give it a fancy name even... singularity! Don't call that science, but faith, belief, just as any other. No matter how far you go back, you cannot get around cause and effect. We are part of the effect, but there is no way we can KNOW the cause.
Your postulated 'Noodleness' came out of and is part of the universe. You wrote that. What then caused the universe which in turn caused your "Noodles" guy?
The Bible, ALONE, of all world views, places the origin of the universe into a cause that is eternal, a transcendent God with no beginning or end. The concept of eternity is very hard for us to even imagine, let alone understand with our finite minds. That is WHY this eternal God asks us to believe. There is no other way. Just because you reject or ignore truth, does not make it any less true.
By orders of magnitude, the Bible is still the most widely distributed and translated piece of writing on earth. There is NO other written work, by a long shot, that is available in as many languages as this collection of books. It was written by at least 40 different authors over 1400 years. Those that brought this work to us were from many walks of life.
I think you, or anyone else, ought to carefully read it in its entirety. Only after that would you be qualified to express you opinion about it.
....SETI went through their entire spectrum twice and hasn't found anything yet.....
And they never will. The probability, by statistical calculations, that there is another planet such as the earth, capable of supporting physical, intelligent life is essentially zero.
Alone the spacing of stars disqualifies half of all stars in all galaxies from hosting a planet like ours. Factors such as star spectrum and star mass, planet mass and distance to star, composition, rotation, nearly circular orbit, magnetic field and other parameters must all be met, in order for a planet to have life as we know it. Complex physical life MUST be carbon based, because the binding energies of other possible chemistries, such as silicon are too strong for really the complex structures needed for life.
It appears that our solar system and earth itself were carefully engineered to be able to sustain life. It is clearly evident that if the calculations for the probability for having another planet like ours are made, taking into account all the above and other factors, the truth expressed by the prophet Isaiah comes forcefully to mind:
Isaiah 45:18 For so says the LORD the Creator of the heavens, He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, not creating it empty, but forming it to be inhabited. I am the LORD, and there is no other.
SETI is a huge, colossal waste of money. At least though this particular waste of money doesn't get people killed, such as war does.
.... but what if what someone doesn't want to cast a vote....
Maybe, if there was a "nobody" and/or a "none of the above" option on every ballot, some of those who now don't vote could express their disgust or disdain with for the candidates on the ballot. As long as money decides who makes it into office and who doesn't for lack of money, a lot of people rightfully feel that voting is a waste of time. To make voting truly worthwhile, money should be taken out of the election system.
On the other hand, maybe money should be the vote. Every person gets to contribute exactly one dollar to their favorite candidate. Then the one with the biggest pile of money is automatically put in that particular office. I am being a bit facetious for those of you that can't tell.
That has been the case for a long time. Every employer is forced by tax laws to be an arm of the government tax collection system. This is also true of banks and other businesses that handle people's money. Doctors are forced to report physical abuse, especially of children and certain public health issues.
For some strange reason though, the people who REPAIR computers are singled out for a rather onerous requirement, that is not applied to others who might have access to equally the damaging and illegal data. I wonder if the owner of one of these private investigator schools has a friend in the Texas Legislature who introduced this law. Maybe it is the owner of a large repair operation, that can afford the trouble and expense of private investigator school, trying to get a leg up on their smaller competitors. I am quite certain that the real reason for this law is money, because that is usually the case for many laws that get passed in many places today.
...Already required in California [ca.gov] (where I live)....
Yes, but in their case it is just an extra $165 tax the state collects. There is no schooling or skills test requirement other than paying this tax. Most laws passed these days are designed to put money in somebody's pocket. In this case, it is the state of California's pocket. I would guess that in the Texas case, it is the pocket of the private investigator schools that will be filled with extra money.
....when did it become ok in America to FORCE an entire profession to become an arm of the government.....
When they passed income tax and payroll withholding laws, every employer became an arm of the IRS. Doctors have long been required by law to report all sorts of things to the government. Anyone who knowingly fails to report a fugitive criminal, is breaking the law and thereby can be himself go to jail. These sorts of laws have been on the books for along time and nobody complained about it.
....No, because computers are much more likely to be involved in crimes....
So why single out people who REPAIR computers? What about people who administer servers containing terabytes of data? Is it not also likely that among all the data might be buried some evidence of crimes? Why not require such a license for everybody who touches a computer not their own? How is someone who reinstalls Windows will replace us a video card different from other computer professionals?
I think that the law enforcement angle and the collection of evidence is a smokescreen for someone trying to beat out competition and make themselves an extra buck. It would be interesting to find out who the sponsors of this law are, how much and by whom they were paid.
....Collect evidence without tainting it themselves....
What I don't understand is why people repairing computers should be licensed as a private investigator, while all the innumerable other people who have access to data that is not their own don't need any license. Have people who repair computers, historically come up with more evidence that has been or might have been used in courts of law? I think that the real reason behind this law has to do with money, not the outside chance of catching some crook or porn addict. Most laws passed these days are for the benefit of someone's pocketbook.
.....collecting EVIDENCE that can be used in court does.....
Computer repair technicians are not hired to collect evidence any more than any other person who has similar access to stored or transmitted information. Why single out people who REPAIR computers. By such foolish thinking, *anybody* who has access to any stored data other than their own, should be so licensed. I bet there is a money interest behind this law, as is the case with most laws passed these days.
..... Look at the requirements to be a barber or beautician....
It seems that equating those who work on computers with those who work on people is gross foolishness. It is especially foolish to require a PI license for someone who repairs a computer. By the rationale that supposedly went into this law, anybody who has access to data should need such a license. After all, they may come across some data that the cops might need that must be preserved properly and pristine, in order to be stand up in a court of law.
It might be instructive to learn who the monied interests are that lobbied for this law. There is very little law made anywhere these days, that does NOT have some money reason behind it. Laws generally get suggested by those who stand to gain financially by the existence of said laws. If such people or companies have the money to put behind the appropriate politicians, they won't hesitate to do so. As the saying goes, "Follow the money".
.....the purpose of satire to determine what those limits are....
The limit will be reached when people will be required by some law to hire a licensed lightbulb screwer-inner. That's when the world will be REALLY screwed up!
To breathe, drink water, eat, drive, chase dogs or cats, teach, build houses or outhouses or most anything else, hunt or fish, make love with or without marriage, which also is licensed. You'd be hard pressed to come up with something that is NOT licensed or permitted, either directly or indirectly, by some level of government. So big deal, another license to do something in life is added to the collection of thousands of things that government requires licenses for.
I agree with you that this litigation isn't going to succeed. What should be done is to find out the politicians who were paid off and by whom and vote them out of office. In a sense, every time a legislator passes such licensing laws, they are loading another tax onto the people. It will now cost more in Texas to get a computer repaired. In fact the cost may increase so much, that almost all computers will be thrown out rather than remain in service. It will also increase the number of do-it-yourself computer owners/fixers. They better also license garbage collectors who may now have access to many computers in dumpsters. These computers may have sensitive information on them, requiring the garbage collector to also have a PI license.
That's a big IF. To change any code, you first have to understand it. We are a long way from understanding what the DNA code means and how it executes. If we did understand in detail exactly how it all works, then yes, the code could be changed to extend the number of generations a cell can divide in a controlled manner.
No, I do not have a religious objection if scientists did manage to figure out how to reprogram the basic code of life. However, I believe what God tells us in the Bible about reality, that is how things really are not as they appear to be. Science in particular and we humans in general are limited to what we can perceive with our senses and the technological extensions thereof.
The reason I believe in God, is the same reason why I believe in the law of cause and effect. If there is an effect, it has to have a cause, unless the cause is eternal, that is uncaused. The fact that there is a universe and that we are here, must mean that something or someone eternal must be its cause. Scientists and philosophers have long realized this and therefore postulated that the universe itself is eternal, that is it has no beginning and therefore is itself uncaused. However, scientists have observed, measured evidence that the universe, as well as time itself did indeed begin and are not eternal.
Current science tells us basically, that there first was nothing and then it exploded and gave it the name "Big Bang". The question now is, what caused the bang to go bang? Whoever, or whatever initiated this Big Bang and brought the whole universe into existence from nothing, must itself or Himself be outside of and independent of the physical creation we live in.
Most religions and philosophies, place whatever idea of God they promulgate, including promoting humans as God, into our physical universe of time and space. Only in the Bible, do we find the idea of a transcendent Creator God outside of and beyond the confines of time and space. This eternal God stepped out of eternity into a time bound world. He took on human form and was called by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
This person, was fully God and a man as God intended us to be. His mission was and is to fulfill our dream of immortality. He said: "I have come to give you life and to give it to you abundantly". He was talking about a life that included, yet far transcended the physical life we now have as coded by DNA. He demonstrated the validity of this promise by himself rising from the dead, and appearing to many witnesses in a physical body with characteristics and capabilities far beyond our own. That is the kind of life that I am looking forward to, according to His promise.
The only condition for receiving this kind of never ending life is to simply believe what He said and did is true, as recorded in the Scriptures. You too, if you WANT to, can believe. What do you have lose?
.....But there is no reason the body *has* to break down.....
Wrong! Have you not heard of apoptosis? This is programmed cell death. Just as your genetic code carries information about your life characteristics, so it also is programmed to an outer limit how long you will live. Every single cell in your body is programmed to die. We call cells that don't die cancerous, because their death mechanism has bee corrupted and they keep dividing without limit.
Death is a blessing, rather than a curse. If there were no death, it would be quite likely that despots, such as say the Emperor Nero or at least more recent dictators, such as Stalin could still be alive to create hell on Earth. Death forces evildoers to eventually exit the stage of life, resulting in a collective sigh of relief by those long oppressed by them, giving them hope for a better life.
God, the creator of life, tells us: "And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)
So far, the first part of this sentence cannot be argued with. Despite all medical advances, every person, including you and me is a terminal case, subject to death. This same book, the Bible, claimed to be the Word of the creator God also tells us that there exists an eternal component of every person that never dies, but will appear before their maker in the future. There will be an evaluation of how we conducted ourselves while in this mortal body. Whether anyone wishes to believe what God had written down there, or not, will not change the final outcome decreed by Him.
...so crowds of angry citizens can overthrow their corrupt leaders...
Even before that, guns are needed to prevent the powers that control law enforcement officers from misusing that power against those whom they don't like for whatever reason. Every tyrant, without a single exception at anytime, anywhere in history, was not able to impose his will on anybody, without rendering them powerless first.
The framers of the Constitution understood that this document does not GIVE people the right to bear arms, but simply protects that inalienable right from being taken away by anyone. No government, anywhere at anytime and anyplace, has ever GIVEN anybody any human rights, such, as in this case, the right of self defense. No government can give rights, because no government can give life. All the people in general and governments in particular can do, or have ever done, is to take rights away. The writers of the Declaration of Independence understood this by stating that all human rights come from the Creator of men and of all life.
....you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right....
More importantly, if a potential tyrant, or even a tyrannical majority, sent the FBI, or other police force to round up a minority of what the political elites in control of law enforcement deemed undesirables, these so called undesirables would be able to resist, by armed force, the grand schemes of such tyrants. The nazis would never have been able to gas millions of Jews if these had been able to resist and take even only one in five gestapo or SS agents with them into death. The arms are needed when a government chooses to use its law enforcement powers in a blatantly wrong manner against otherwise innocent people, not to mount an attack of any sort.
....when freaks like us are being dragged off to Gitmo,....
If you happen to be one of those "freaks" that they come for in the middle of the night and you would rather DIE than get dragged off, then a gun would be rather handy. It could be used to take at least one, or if you're lucky several, of those policemen who blindly obey the government, down into death with you. If enough of the so called "freaks" were willing and able, by virtue of having a gun, to do just that, nobody would go to GITMO or any other concentration camp. If the Jews had been armed, the the Nazis would not have been able to round up and gas millions of them. There would not have been enough gestapo agents willing or able to do all that dirty work of the few upper crust nazis who gave the orders to exterminate millions of people they considered "Untermenschen", (beneath human) The first task any potential tyrant has to accomplish, is to disarm the populace, which of course includes "the undesirables". The framers of the Constitution understood from history, that no tyrant can come to power over a population ABLE and willing to resist. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS also mentions this vital aspect of and reason for gun ownership of the people..
....They all have at least one good point though: what do we do with the waste?....
That USED to be a problem. Now, spent nuclear fuel is recycled with new technology. There is very little radioactive material left to be stored. Robotically controlled, computerized re-processing plants make the costs much lower since robots can take much more radiation than people.
....Evolution is a fact, not a mere "interpretation"....
It is not. EVERY observed, not conjectured fact of nature, as far as origins are concerned can be INTERPRETED either way.
Before there can even be life, the conditions for life have to be right. First, there has to be a Universe wherein life can come into existence. It used to be that scientists thought that the Universe is eternal, uncaused. We know know that the Universe had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist requires a cause, unless it has always existed. Therefore, whatever or whoever caused a beginning, a Universe with a beginning, itself or Himself has to be uncaused and eternal.
This is what we read in the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created heaven and earth". Here we have represented the world science studies. There is time-space and matter-energy. everything scientists study involves these. We observe still, evidences of this beginning. It has been labeled "The Big Bang". Before that, there was nothing and then it exploded. All explosions we know anything about only cause chaos, never order. Anyone who can believe in a God who is capable of creating an entire universe out of nothing should have no trouble believing that such a God could control its development after that, including the creation of life.
All the conjectures about how life developed after something was created from nothing, are mere details. It is exciting and useful to study these details, but to leave God out of participation in these details is foolishness. The God who created time itself is not subject to time. In a sense, arguments about the age of the universe or how long it took for life to develop is irrelevant. Anyone who is able to create and control time itself, would also be able to bring order into his universe in whatever amount of time He wanted. He could take billions or millions of years, as evolutionists tell us, or he could do it in six days, as creationists tell us. The main point is, not how long it took, but who did it.
Evolutionist attribute to time accomplishing what creationists say God did. Time in a sense, becomes the evolutionists substitute for God. Without lots of time, evolution cannot accomplish its work. For creationists, time is essentially irrelevant, except they believe that the God who is outside of time and created time, revealed to mankind, in a cryptic way, the time element involved in bringing order to the universe and creating life. Other than the Creator himself revealing things to men, there is no way to know. The only thing we are left with, is either to believe God or not.
Your life and destiny depends on what to believe, not what you know. You cannot know for sure, that the airplane you are getting on will safely get you to your destination, but you can believe that it will and act upon the belief by boarding the plane. Whether you like it or not, your life is governed by what you believe, much more than by what you know.
Slashdot Mirror
....We see no evidence of such a global flood....
If you can name ONE place on this entire planet that was NOT covered with water at one time, then you could say there was not a global flood. If you look at a globe even today, you would see that three fourths of this planet is covered with water even still. If you flattened out the earth, it would be covered uniformly to over a mile with water. We know that the land masses of Earth are still moving up and down and along the surface. Apparently, this movement was much greater in the past.
Furthermore, the quantities of water in the mantle of the earth could far exceed that in the crust and the oceans combined. There is some evidence of this here:
http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html
Since it is rather difficult to put seismometers on the bottom of the oceans, the evidence is confined mostly to the parts of the mantle which underlies the large land the masses of the earth. There is no reason to believe that the mantle which underlies the oceans contains proportionately less water. The Bible mentions to sources of water for the flood. One was from above in the form of rain and the other was from below. We are told that the fountains of the great deep broke open and flooded the Earth. It is of course speculation to determine what may have caused all that water or a significant portion of it to well up out of the mantle and then a return. If a sponge saturated with water is squeezed, the water will come out of it, but returned once the pressure is eased. It is possible, although unknown and unknowable, that a large gravitational object, such as a planet sized body passed close to the earth, putting the gravitational squeeze on the planet. In short, there is evidence that there was indeed a worldwide flood. It is certainly not impossible, judging from the amount of water available.
There is no way to make a fossil by any known as slow, gradual process. When an organism dies, it immediately begins to decay never making a fossil. To make a fossil, all microorganisms also must be immediately killed. Only a sudden catastrophe can do this.
It is clear to me that you have never read the biblical account of the flood even once. If you had, you would have noticed that Noah did not go out to collect animals and that the word species is not used.
We humans intensely dislike sudden events beyond our control, rather thinking that current processes can always be extrapolated into the past. We know from events, such as the eruption of Mount St. Helens, that geological processes, specifically petrification can take place in a very short amount of time. The Toutle River carved a miniature version of the Grand Canyon in hours, as the snow waters melted by the eruption raged through the canyon, obliterating everything in its path and transporting millions of tons of silt, rock, trees and other things in its way.
How do historians judge the accuracy or fiction of ancient records? Can written historical accounts, no matter where they appear be trusted? Did Alexander the great really live? Were the Roman emperors, such as Nero or Caligula as terrible and corrupt as we read in historical accounts? How credible are the witnesses that wrote these things? There are people today who will deny even the relatively recent history, such as the Holocaust of World War II.
(...Our lifespans, like those of all organisms, are a result of the ability of their DNA to copy itself reliably...)
The lifetime of any organism is determined by the number of times its cells can divide before apoptosis, that is cell death occurs. DNA contains code which tells each cell when to die. In humans, a complete turnover of cells occurs about every seven years. When this code fails or is corrupted, cells divide without limit and that is what we call cancer.
(...The Bible is no more historically accurate...)
So far at least, the Bible is 100% correct in the accuracy of its historical p
....A big change, yes, but it could be good or bad.....
depending on whether all people were either good or bad. Elimination of death would be great if all people were good, never selfish, never doing anything to hurt another or seeking advantage over another human being. The sad fact is that all people are not good, but that there are those among us who will stop at nothing to get their own way and take power over others at all costs. If people like that somehow manage to grab power and never die, they would create hell on earth for the rest of us. Because all people are not good, it is a blessing that death prevents evil from getting the upper hand on all of humanity.
.....Indeed, our lifespans have already been doubled in the last couple of hundred years.....
It is a fallacy to state that human life spans have doubled. They have not. The AVERAGE life span has, because of medical advances, especially in infectious disease treatment and many fewer child deaths today. There were fewer old people back then, but there were some that managed to get to a hundred or slightly more even then. The MAXIMUM life span has not changed much, if at all in the last few thousand years. There are still today, as there have always been, isolated regions of earth, where people have made it to 120-130 years. It is instructive to note, that there are NO practitioners of modern medicine in these areas where some people live inordinately long.
Some cultures, such as those whose histories we find recorded in the Bible, relate that people at one time did live for centuries. These cultures kept extensive, detailed genealogies giving names, lineages and age at death. If we take these records at their face values, the recorded life spans dropped precipitously from centuries down to the maximum of around 120 years, where it is still is today. There is good reason to believe that these records are truthful history. After all what reasons or ulterior motives could we ascribe to the recorders of these histories? Why they would falsely or erroneously write such genealogies?
The question is: Did Methuselah REALLY live 969 years, as recorded, or is that simply untrue, fictitious imaginations? Was Noah a real person in history and did he really die at the ripe old age of 950?
....I wonder if someone with a few hundres years of life experience would....
be able to totally subjugate a nation or even the world if that someone where like Hitler or Stalin or equivalent evil dictator. Since in this world, wealth is a certain measure of power, both of these could accumulate in one or a few people and subjugate the rest with no prospect of it ever ending or at least not been a long time. If people were all good then eternal life would be a great thing. The sad fact is that people are not all good, which makes death blessing because it puts an end to evil.
...humans living that long would grossly exacerbate the current crisis concerning population and resources.....
It seems me that would not be the biggest problem, but that evildoers like Stalin and Hitler and some of the ancient emperors of Rome could still be tyrannizing their subjects if eternal life where possible for humanity today or ever. Can you imagine what this world would be like if extreme evildoers rose to power and were never removed by death? I don't think Hell itself could be any worse than a world like ours without death.
....In the beginning, the universe was cold and barren and empty.....
You and your monster got it wrong. In the beginning there was NO Universe and no time. There was nothing and then it exploded. THAT is modern science? They give it a fancy name even ... singularity! Don't call that science, but faith, belief, just as any other. No matter how far you go back, you cannot get around cause and effect. We are part of the effect, but there is no way we can KNOW the cause.
Your postulated 'Noodleness' came out of and is part of the universe. You wrote that. What then caused the universe which in turn caused your "Noodles" guy?
The Bible, ALONE, of all world views, places the origin of the universe into a cause that is eternal, a transcendent God with no beginning or end. The concept of eternity is very hard for us to even imagine, let alone understand with our finite minds. That is WHY this eternal God asks us to believe. There is no other way. Just because you reject or ignore truth, does not make it any less true.
By orders of magnitude, the Bible is still the most widely distributed and translated piece of writing on earth. There is NO other written work, by a long shot, that is available in as many languages as this collection of books. It was written by at least 40 different authors over 1400 years. Those that brought this work to us were from many walks of life.
I think you, or anyone else, ought to carefully read it in its entirety. Only after that would you be qualified to express you opinion about it.
....SETI went through their entire spectrum twice and hasn't found anything yet.....
And they never will. The probability, by statistical calculations, that there is another planet such as the earth, capable of supporting physical, intelligent life is essentially zero.
Alone the spacing of stars disqualifies half of all stars in all galaxies from hosting a planet like ours. Factors such as star spectrum and star mass, planet mass and distance to star, composition, rotation, nearly circular orbit, magnetic field and other parameters must all be met, in order for a planet to have life as we know it. Complex physical life MUST be carbon based, because the binding energies of other possible chemistries, such as silicon are too strong for really the complex structures needed for life.
It appears that our solar system and earth itself were carefully engineered to be able to sustain life. It is clearly evident that if the calculations for the probability for having another planet like ours are made, taking into account all the above and other factors, the truth expressed by the prophet Isaiah comes forcefully to mind:
Isaiah 45:18 For so says the LORD the Creator of the heavens, He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, not creating it empty, but forming it to be inhabited. I am the LORD, and there is no other.
SETI is a huge, colossal waste of money. At least though this particular waste of money doesn't get people killed, such as war does.
.... but what if what someone doesn't want to cast a vote....
Maybe, if there was a "nobody" and/or a "none of the above" option on every ballot, some of those who now don't vote could express their disgust or disdain with for the candidates on the ballot. As long as money decides who makes it into office and who doesn't for lack of money, a lot of people rightfully feel that voting is a waste of time. To make voting truly worthwhile, money should be taken out of the election system.
On the other hand, maybe money should be the vote. Every person gets to contribute exactly one dollar to their favorite candidate. Then the one with the biggest pile of money is automatically put in that particular office. I am being a bit facetious for those of you that can't tell.
...is that businesses can enforce some laws....
That has been the case for a long time. Every employer is forced by tax laws to be an arm of the government tax collection system. This is also true of banks and other businesses that handle people's money. Doctors are forced to report physical abuse, especially of children and certain public health issues.
For some strange reason though, the people who REPAIR computers are singled out for a rather onerous requirement, that is not applied to others who might have access to equally the damaging and illegal data. I wonder if the owner of one of these private investigator schools has a friend in the Texas Legislature who introduced this law. Maybe it is the owner of a large repair operation, that can afford the trouble and expense of private investigator school, trying to get a leg up on their smaller competitors. I am quite certain that the real reason for this law is money, because that is usually the case for many laws that get passed in many places today.
...Already required in California [ca.gov] (where I live)....
Yes, but in their case it is just an extra $165 tax the state collects. There is no schooling or skills test requirement other than paying this tax. Most laws passed these days are designed to put money in somebody's pocket. In this case, it is the state of California's pocket. I would guess that in the Texas case, it is the pocket of the private investigator schools that will be filled with extra money.
....when did it become ok in America to FORCE an entire profession to become an arm of the government.....
When they passed income tax and payroll withholding laws, every employer became an arm of the IRS. Doctors have long been required by law to report all sorts of things to the government. Anyone who knowingly fails to report a fugitive criminal, is breaking the law and thereby can be himself go to jail. These sorts of laws have been on the books for along time and nobody complained about it.
....No, because computers are much more likely to be involved in crimes....
So why single out people who REPAIR computers? What about people who administer servers containing terabytes of data? Is it not also likely that among all the data might be buried some evidence of crimes? Why not require such a license for everybody who touches a computer not their own? How is someone who reinstalls Windows will replace us a video card different from other computer professionals?
I think that the law enforcement angle and the collection of evidence is a smokescreen for someone trying to beat out competition and make themselves an extra buck. It would be interesting to find out who the sponsors of this law are, how much and by whom they were paid.
....Collect evidence without tainting it themselves....
What I don't understand is why people repairing computers should be licensed as a private investigator, while all the innumerable other people who have access to data that is not their own don't need any license. Have people who repair computers, historically come up with more evidence that has been or might have been used in courts of law? I think that the real reason behind this law has to do with money, not the outside chance of catching some crook or porn addict. Most laws passed these days are for the benefit of someone's pocketbook.
.....collecting EVIDENCE that can be used in court does.....
Computer repair technicians are not hired to collect evidence any more than any other person who has similar access to stored or transmitted information. Why single out people who REPAIR computers. By such foolish thinking, *anybody* who has access to any stored data other than their own, should be so licensed. I bet there is a money interest behind this law, as is the case with most laws passed these days.
..... Look at the requirements to be a barber or beautician....
It seems that equating those who work on computers with those who work on people is gross foolishness. It is especially foolish to require a PI license for someone who repairs a computer. By the rationale that supposedly went into this law, anybody who has access to data should need such a license. After all, they may come across some data that the cops might need that must be preserved properly and pristine, in order to be stand up in a court of law.
It might be instructive to learn who the monied interests are that lobbied for this law. There is very little law made anywhere these days, that does NOT have some money reason behind it. Laws generally get suggested by those who stand to gain financially by the existence of said laws. If such people or companies have the money to put behind the appropriate politicians, they won't hesitate to do so. As the saying goes, "Follow the money".
.....the purpose of satire to determine what those limits are....
The limit will be reached when people will be required by some law to hire a licensed lightbulb screwer-inner. That's when the world will be REALLY screwed up!
...require licenses ...
To breathe, drink water, eat, drive, chase dogs or cats, teach, build houses or outhouses or most anything else, hunt or fish, make love with or without marriage, which also is licensed. You'd be hard pressed to come up with something that is NOT licensed or permitted, either directly or indirectly, by some level of government. So big deal, another license to do something in life is added to the collection of thousands of things that government requires licenses for.
I agree with you that this litigation isn't going to succeed. What should be done is to find out the politicians who were paid off and by whom and vote them out of office. In a sense, every time a legislator passes such licensing laws, they are loading another tax onto the people. It will now cost more in Texas to get a computer repaired. In fact the cost may increase so much, that almost all computers will be thrown out rather than remain in service. It will also increase the number of do-it-yourself computer owners/fixers. They better also license garbage collectors who may now have access to many computers in dumpsters. These computers may have sensitive information on them, requiring the garbage collector to also have a PI license.
....If you can change the code....
That's a big IF. To change any code, you first have to understand it. We are a long way from understanding what the DNA code means and how it executes. If we did understand in detail exactly how it all works, then yes, the code could be changed to extend the number of generations a cell can divide in a controlled manner.
No, I do not have a religious objection if scientists did manage to figure out how to reprogram the basic code of life. However, I believe what God tells us in the Bible about reality, that is how things really are not as they appear to be. Science in particular and we humans in general are limited to what we can perceive with our senses and the technological extensions thereof.
The reason I believe in God, is the same reason why I believe in the law of cause and effect. If there is an effect, it has to have a cause, unless the cause is eternal, that is uncaused. The fact that there is a universe and that we are here, must mean that something or someone eternal must be its cause. Scientists and philosophers have long realized this and therefore postulated that the universe itself is eternal, that is it has no beginning and therefore is itself uncaused. However, scientists have observed, measured evidence that the universe, as well as time itself did indeed begin and are not eternal.
Current science tells us basically, that there first was nothing and then it exploded and gave it the name "Big Bang". The question now is, what caused the bang to go bang? Whoever, or whatever initiated this Big Bang and brought the whole universe into existence from nothing, must itself or Himself be outside of and independent of the physical creation we live in.
Most religions and philosophies, place whatever idea of God they promulgate, including promoting humans as God, into our physical universe of time and space. Only in the Bible, do we find the idea of a transcendent Creator God outside of and beyond the confines of time and space. This eternal God stepped out of eternity into a time bound world. He took on human form and was called by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
This person, was fully God and a man as God intended us to be. His mission was and is to fulfill our dream of immortality. He said: "I have come to give you life and to give it to you abundantly". He was talking about a life that included, yet far transcended the physical life we now have as coded by DNA. He demonstrated the validity of this promise by himself rising from the dead, and appearing to many witnesses in a physical body with characteristics and capabilities far beyond our own. That is the kind of life that I am looking forward to, according to His promise.
The only condition for receiving this kind of never ending life is to simply believe what He said and did is true, as recorded in the Scriptures. You too, if you WANT to, can believe. What do you have lose?
.....But there is no reason the body *has* to break down.....
Wrong! Have you not heard of apoptosis? This is programmed cell death. Just as your genetic code carries information about your life characteristics, so it also is programmed to an outer limit how long you will live. Every single cell in your body is programmed to die. We call cells that don't die cancerous, because their death mechanism has bee corrupted and they keep dividing without limit.
Death is a blessing, rather than a curse. If there were no death, it would be quite likely that despots, such as say the Emperor Nero or at least more recent dictators, such as Stalin could still be alive to create hell on Earth. Death forces evildoers to eventually exit the stage of life, resulting in a collective sigh of relief by those long oppressed by them, giving them hope for a better life.
God, the creator of life, tells us: "And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)
So far, the first part of this sentence cannot be argued with. Despite all medical advances, every person, including you and me is a terminal case, subject to death. This same book, the Bible, claimed to be the Word of the creator God also tells us that there exists an eternal component of every person that never dies, but will appear before their maker in the future. There will be an evaluation of how we conducted ourselves while in this mortal body. Whether anyone wishes to believe what God had written down there, or not, will not change the final outcome decreed by Him.
....and hope not to die...
Ah yes, the fountain of youth, an ancient dream, still very much alive. Before this will work, somebody will have to repeal the law of entropy.
...so crowds of angry citizens can overthrow their corrupt leaders...
Even before that, guns are needed to prevent the powers that control law enforcement officers from misusing that power against those whom they don't like for whatever reason. Every tyrant, without a single exception at anytime, anywhere in history, was not able to impose his will on anybody, without rendering them powerless first.
The framers of the Constitution understood that this document does not GIVE people the right to bear arms, but simply protects that inalienable right from being taken away by anyone. No government, anywhere at anytime and anyplace, has ever GIVEN anybody any human rights, such, as in this case, the right of self defense. No government can give rights, because no government can give life. All the people in general and governments in particular can do, or have ever done, is to take rights away. The writers of the Declaration of Independence understood this by stating that all human rights come from the Creator of men and of all life.
....you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right....
More importantly, if a potential tyrant, or even a tyrannical majority, sent the FBI, or other police force to round up a minority of what the political elites in control of law enforcement deemed undesirables, these so called undesirables would be able to resist, by armed force, the grand schemes of such tyrants. The nazis would never have been able to gas millions of Jews if these had been able to resist and take even only one in five gestapo or SS agents with them into death. The arms are needed when a government chooses to use its law enforcement powers in a blatantly wrong manner against otherwise innocent people, not to mount an attack of any sort.
....when freaks like us are being dragged off to Gitmo,....
If you happen to be one of those "freaks" that they come for in the middle of the night and you would rather DIE than get dragged off, then a gun would be rather handy. It could be used to take at least one, or if you're lucky several, of those policemen who blindly obey the government, down into death with you. If enough of the so called "freaks" were willing and able, by virtue of having a gun, to do just that, nobody would go to GITMO or any other concentration camp. If the Jews had been armed, the the Nazis would not have been able to round up and gas millions of them. There would not have been enough gestapo agents willing or able to do all that dirty work of the few upper crust nazis who gave the orders to exterminate millions of people they considered "Untermenschen", (beneath human) The first task any potential tyrant has to accomplish, is to disarm the populace, which of course includes "the undesirables". The framers of the Constitution understood from history, that no tyrant can come to power over a population ABLE and willing to resist. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS also mentions this vital aspect of and reason for gun ownership of the people..
....They all have at least one good point though: what do we do with the waste?....
That USED to be a problem. Now, spent nuclear fuel is recycled with new technology. There is very little radioactive material left to be stored. Robotically controlled, computerized re-processing plants make the costs much lower since robots can take much more radiation than people.
....Evolution is a fact, not a mere "interpretation"....
It is not. EVERY observed, not conjectured fact of nature, as far as origins are concerned can be INTERPRETED either way.
Before there can even be life, the conditions for life have to be right. First, there has to be a Universe wherein life can come into existence. It used to be that scientists thought that the Universe is eternal, uncaused. We know know that the Universe had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist requires a cause, unless it has always existed. Therefore, whatever or whoever caused a beginning, a Universe with a beginning, itself or Himself has to be uncaused and eternal.
This is what we read in the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created heaven and earth". Here we have represented the world science studies. There is time-space and matter-energy. everything scientists study involves these. We observe still, evidences of this beginning. It has been labeled "The Big Bang". Before that, there was nothing and then it exploded. All explosions we know anything about only cause chaos, never order. Anyone who can believe in a God who is capable of creating an entire universe out of nothing should have no trouble believing that such a God could control its development after that, including the creation of life.
All the conjectures about how life developed after something was created from nothing, are mere details. It is exciting and useful to study these details, but to leave God out of participation in these details is foolishness. The God who created time itself is not subject to time. In a sense, arguments about the age of the universe or how long it took for life to develop is irrelevant. Anyone who is able to create and control time itself, would also be able to bring order into his universe in whatever amount of time He wanted. He could take billions or millions of years, as evolutionists tell us, or he could do it in six days, as creationists tell us. The main point is, not how long it took, but who did it.
Evolutionist attribute to time accomplishing what creationists say God did. Time in a sense, becomes the evolutionists substitute for God. Without lots of time, evolution cannot accomplish its work. For creationists, time is essentially irrelevant, except they believe that the God who is outside of time and created time, revealed to mankind, in a cryptic way, the time element involved in bringing order to the universe and creating life. Other than the Creator himself revealing things to men, there is no way to know. The only thing we are left with, is either to believe God or not.
Your life and destiny depends on what to believe, not what you know. You cannot know for sure, that the airplane you are getting on will safely get you to your destination, but you can believe that it will and act upon the belief by boarding the plane. Whether you like it or not, your life is governed by what you believe, much more than by what you know.