Because quite simply what a person believes impacts how they act and what decisions they make. In a political context, it effects the policies by which they will govern. While religion is not a foolproof indicator, it gives at least some framework by which to study a candidates credentials.
Sorry - try again:
Matthew 4:8 - It is obvious from context that this is spiritual. This would be impossible physically even with a flat earth.
Daniel 4:10-11 - this is a vision and thus not literal as continuing to read to verse 19 would indicate.
Job 38:13 and 37:3 - "Ends of the earth" is an expression used to indicate the whole world and as such is still in use today.
Joshua 10:12-13 - describes what happened from the standpoint of the observer For an observer on earth the sun does appear to move
Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "Sunrise" and "Sunset" are terms which are still used today to describe the solar cycle.
1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 19:4-6 - These are songs not scientific observations or even historical reports.
Keep in mind also that you are looking at a translation which can sometimes choose bad wording. An example is Isiash 40:22 which would appear to imply a flat earth but examination of the Hebrew shows that the word used can imply 3 dimensions.
Nice try at flaming. However, your article states that evangelical leaders condemned the bombing, and the identity of the bomber is not given let alone his religious affiliation. Assuming he is a Christian solely on the basis of his target choice is weak at best. Finally, 10 year old article?
"Creationism does not. It is not verifiable (no, your 'Good Book' doesn't count). It is not falsifiable (we can't prove that without it, there would be no man). And it is not repeatable. (We can't just make a man in a lab from dirt.)"
I have to chime in on this. These same points would also seem to apply to evolution.
specifically: verifiable - Design and evolution are 2 conclusions both reached from varying interpretations repeatable - You can't evolve man in a lab either. falsifiable - based on number 2 it will always be a matter of probability whether man evolved.
Interesting evolution is definitely proven? I know I will be modded down endlessly for brining this up, but...
1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).
2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.
My facts may not be up to date (and yes I am a creationist), however just as I take the Bible on faith (as Hebrews 11:3 states); It would seem that an evolutionist must rely on faith that there is a mechanism (mutation or otherwise) capable of differentiating species. It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists.
Also please do not the the wrong actions (tax evasion) effect your judgment. The Bible clearly teaches that men are flawed beings. If Dr. Hovind has engaged in tax evasion (I do not know all the facts here), he has violated both Scripture and the laws of the country. Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.
I have to reply to this...too many miconceptions.
1) The Bible rarely lists daughters in geneologies so absence is not suprising.
2) I do not believe the Bible gives any indication of when the Cain and Abel incident took place (Adam lived for 960 years according to Scripture) - plenty of time to have a sunstantial population.
3) The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters(unamed) Cain and Abel were likely named due to their story. We do not know where they fell chronologically.
Note however that evolution is also a matter of faith. What man or group of men have proposed and executed a repeatable experiment where one species evolved into a higher species while observing the results? A repeatable (and thus verifiable) experiment is the cornerstone of science. Since such an experiment would be impossible (ostensibly it would take millions of years), calling evolution "science" and ID "faith" is no more than a blatant attempt to control the debate by redefining terms. Both sides invole faith. In regards to origins, science can only provide use with information, it cannot in and of itself prove one or the other,
One primary problem with this discussion is that neither ID or evolution is science. Both are religious and based on faith. No one saw creation and no one has witnessed macro-evolution. One side places its faith in scientists another in Scripture. By calling evolution science, people are decieved into beliveing that it can be proven - it cannot.
Both sides have explanations for such things as fossils - for the ID side a catastrophe such as the Noah's Flood (fossils do require rapid burial).
Also, evolutionist ignore evidence which contradicts their positions such as
DNA being found from ages where it should be totally gone
and the fact that there are not clear cut transitional lifeforms
Thunderbird's usefulness to me is cross platform e-mail. Since the linux and and windows versions use the same mail store format, just setup the store in a mutually accesible spot to all OS software and it works.
This will probably be modded as flamebait, but with all of the talk about 2000 election, has anyone considered that maybe the problem is not with the Florida voting method? A hanging chad is a very difficult thing to make - these are not stone tablets folks, the stylus should puncture. I saw one report of someone who was loaned on of the types of voting machines used in Florida in order to see if he could make an ambigous ballot. He only found only one way, 2 or more ballots per attempt. This could shed some light on the demands for a hand recount...
Slashdot Mirror
Because quite simply what a person believes impacts how they act and what decisions they make. In a political context, it effects the policies by which they will govern. While religion is not a foolproof indicator, it gives at least some framework by which to study a candidates credentials.
Not to mention that sometimes two people can share an IP address. Two college roommates can't have individual Paypal accounts?
You must be allergic to beef. Wow. Hope your not on the ISS.
Check here http://openprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=Samsung-2510
also, do an lsusb to ensure the printer appears
Obviously you don't have my router
Sorry - try again: Matthew 4:8 - It is obvious from context that this is spiritual. This would be impossible physically even with a flat earth.
Daniel 4:10-11 - this is a vision and thus not literal as continuing to read to verse 19 would indicate.
Job 38:13 and 37:3 - "Ends of the earth" is an expression used to indicate the whole world and as such is still in use today.
Joshua 10:12-13 - describes what happened from the standpoint of the observer For an observer on earth the sun does appear to move
Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "Sunrise" and "Sunset" are terms which are still used today to describe the solar cycle.
1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 19:4-6 - These are songs not scientific observations or even historical reports.
Keep in mind also that you are looking at a translation which can sometimes choose bad wording. An example is Isiash 40:22 which would appear to imply a flat earth but examination of the Hebrew shows that the word used can imply 3 dimensions.
Nice try at flaming. However, your article states that evangelical leaders condemned the bombing, and the identity of the bomber is not given let alone his religious affiliation. Assuming he is a Christian solely on the basis of his target choice is weak at best. Finally, 10 year old article?
captcha: distort (how appropos)
"Creationism does not. It is not verifiable (no, your 'Good Book' doesn't count). It is not falsifiable (we can't prove that without it, there would be no man). And it is not repeatable. (We can't just make a man in a lab from dirt.)"
I have to chime in on this. These same points would also seem to apply to evolution.
specifically:
verifiable - Design and evolution are 2 conclusions both reached from varying interpretations
repeatable - You can't evolve man in a lab either.
falsifiable - based on number 2 it will always be a matter of probability whether man evolved.
This article was probably only talking about new shows but CBS Numbers is a very good geek/need/mathwiz type show as well.
Interesting evolution is definitely proven? I know I will be modded down endlessly for brining this up, but...
1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).
2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.
My facts may not be up to date (and yes I am a creationist), however just as I take the Bible on faith (as Hebrews 11:3 states); It would seem that an evolutionist must rely on faith that there is a mechanism (mutation or otherwise) capable of differentiating species. It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists.
Also please do not the the wrong actions (tax evasion) effect your judgment. The Bible clearly teaches that men are flawed beings. If Dr. Hovind has engaged in tax evasion (I do not know all the facts here), he has violated both Scripture and the laws of the country. Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.
I have to reply to this...too many miconceptions.
1) The Bible rarely lists daughters in geneologies so absence is not suprising.
2) I do not believe the Bible gives any indication of when the Cain and Abel incident took place (Adam lived for 960 years according to Scripture) - plenty of time to have a sunstantial population.
3) The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters(unamed) Cain and Abel were likely named due to their story. We do not know where they fell chronologically.
Why does this come across as similar to "Locutus of Borg"?
Note however that evolution is also a matter of faith. What man or group of men have proposed and executed a repeatable experiment where one species evolved into a higher species while observing the results? A repeatable (and thus verifiable) experiment is the cornerstone of science. Since such an experiment would be impossible (ostensibly it would take millions of years), calling evolution "science" and ID "faith" is no more than a blatant attempt to control the debate by redefining terms. Both sides invole faith. In regards to origins, science can only provide use with information, it cannot in and of itself prove one or the other,
One primary problem with this discussion is that neither ID or evolution is science. Both are religious and based on faith. No one saw creation and no one has witnessed macro-evolution. One side places its faith in scientists another in Scripture. By calling evolution science, people are decieved into beliveing that it can be proven - it cannot. Both sides have explanations for such things as fossils - for the ID side a catastrophe such as the Noah's Flood (fossils do require rapid burial). Also, evolutionist ignore evidence which contradicts their positions such as DNA being found from ages where it should be totally gone and the fact that there are not clear cut transitional lifeforms
No this is with POP3
Thunderbird's usefulness to me is cross platform e-mail. Since the linux and and windows versions use the same mail store format, just setup the store in a mutually accesible spot to all OS software and it works.
Be glad they don't mention voyager or we would be pelted with Star Trek "VIGER" jokes
Han is known for his fast draw so this edit might actually (to the horror of all I know) be *more* in character than either of the previous attempts.
This will probably be modded as flamebait, but with all of the talk about 2000 election, has anyone considered that maybe the problem is not with the Florida voting method? A hanging chad is a very difficult thing to make - these are not stone tablets folks, the stylus should puncture. I saw one report of someone who was loaned on of the types of voting machines used in Florida in order to see if he could make an ambigous ballot. He only found only one way, 2 or more ballots per attempt. This could shed some light on the demands for a hand recount...