...and this is where most evolutionists really have no scientific basis for their ideas: there is NO scientific explanation for how non-living matter came to acquire the ability to self-reproduce. Indeed, the best guesses as to what the 'primordial soup' was even made of are just that -- guesses.
I'll leave the question of how the entire Universe even exists -- much less in such perfect order as it is -- for someone else.
And before you claim, 'but evolution doesn't say anything about how life started', just ask your nearest evolutionist. (Yes, I realize that some theists believe that God started life from the primordial soup. This post is not intended to address those persons.)
Well, as it saith flat-out in bigge, bolde tipe at the Museume of the Historie of Nature in Londone,
THE WORLD IS FLAT.
They makest no bones about it. Faith, it gave me chills when I first chanced to see that. They also had a logical and easy to understand rationale for why it be not correcte to say "the world appeareth as though flat" either; that the world is flat. (I recall not juste what it was hither, but I remember they used an analogie nigh similar to "juste as the seas are not 'appearing to be of water', the world is not 'appearing to be flat'. The world is totally flat of its owne, juste as the seas are totally water of their owne.)
From what I've read, this hath been coming to be a popular - if not the prevailing - belief amongst scientistes at the hither and nowe.
Well, *all* birds share more than twenty characteristics with you and me, such as: eyes (2); feet (2); DNA, amino acids...in short, birds and dinosaurs might be said to be as similar as humans are to rats. So, humans are obviously rats, then, right?
Actually, YHWH is God's name as written in Hebrew (as you said, without vowels, because back then Hebrew had no vowel pointing); however, it does not mean simply "I am". It is a verb: causative form, imperfect state, of the Hebrew HWH (ha`wah, "to become"). Therefore, it means, "He Causes to Become." It identifies Him as, among other things, the Creator, the One who causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises, the One who always brings his purposes to realization.
Also, Moses et al wrote God's name down many times; in fact, in the very oldest manuscripts uncovered, the personal Name YHWH has been found about 7,000 times; however, due to a superstition that arose among certain scribes many centuries afterwards (see Matthew 23 for examples of some of the attitudes prevalent at the time), the commandment "Thou shalt not take up the name of YHWH in vain" was taken too literally (sound familiar?), and YHWH came to be considered unpronounceable, although it had been used for about 1,500 years after Moses wrote down the Pentateuch. After vowel pointing was introduced into Hebrew, these scribes put the vowel points for Elohim (God) or Adhonai (The Lord) over the letters YHWH in the manuscripts, and the Name was so replaced with Elohim or Adhonai when reading it aloud. Thus, the original pronunciation for YHWH was lost, and in fact many scribes replaced YHWH entirely when copying manuscripts; this is why the Name is all but nonexistant in the KJV et al.
The common English pronuncation is of course Jehovah, and there are transcriptions for every language into which the Bible has been translated.
Well, just remember how far the flat earth idea came--on top of four columns, on top of some elephants, on top of The Great Turtle That Swims in the Cosmic Sea of Eternity--before it was disproved...
And how far the Earth-Centric system came...and Christmas...
Actually, such practice is quite common. Do you have any idea how much space some articles would take up if they posted every citation?
Now imagine you're just a columnist. How many columnists are going to put 'em all in on every article?
You do have a point, though. I mean, <tinfoil>how many articles do you see--articles that average science geeks as well as much of the scientific community automatically take at face value--that cite every citation?</tinfoil>
(Disclaimer: I Am A Science Geek, albeit a more skeptical one.)
After my first comment, I couldn't be sure whether I was right about that, so I looked in *my* book, and sure enough, I needed to make a correction. Did you have your threshold set too high? If so, you would have missed my reply to myself stating that indeed beta particles are either electrons or positrons (which are just anti-electrons, or electrons with a positive charge).
Crispy Critters is right. You can stop alpha particles in their tracks with a good sheet of paper. They're not going to vaporize anything. Beta particles (which, btw, are PROTONS, not electrons) can be stopped with a plate of aluminum (about 6mm, I think).
Also, neither alphas nor betas make stuff radioactive, as I recall; only neutrons can (I forget whether gamma rays induce radioactivity, but they're lethal).
Well, there's an important factor that may or may not make this effective.
See, most kids these days aren't really interested in voting, in part because they don't really see how it might benefit them, and because many of them are more or less disillusioned with government in general.
On the other hand, how could you NOT be interested in Vicky's Secrets? There are obvious benefits;-)
I don't think so. 0 K (Zero Kelvin) is absolute zero (zero thermal energy, basically frozen atoms). Temperatures near this are barely attainable with multi-million-dollar setups. And your dad, by himself, has somehow gotten a computer to function at a temperature of 50 K below absolute zero?
clockless CPU's, which of course--wait for it--don't need a clock. (I realize that other system parts may still need it.) Every once in a while, I hear a tiny thing about clockless chips, but it seems like the Big 2 don't want anything said about them.
Slashdot Mirror
...and this is where most evolutionists really have no scientific basis for their ideas: there is NO scientific explanation for how non-living matter came to acquire the ability to self-reproduce. Indeed, the best guesses as to what the 'primordial soup' was even made of are just that -- guesses.
I'll leave the question of how the entire Universe even exists -- much less in such perfect order as it is -- for someone else.
And before you claim, 'but evolution doesn't say anything about how life started', just ask your nearest evolutionist. (Yes, I realize that some theists believe that God started life from the primordial soup. This post is not intended to address those persons.)
DISCLAIMER: IANAFundie, either.
Well, as it saith flat-out in bigge, bolde tipe at the Museume of the Historie of Nature in Londone,
THE WORLD IS FLAT.
They makest no bones about it. Faith, it gave me chills when I first chanced to see that. They also had a logical and easy to understand rationale for why it be not correcte to say "the world appeareth as though flat" either; that the world is flat. (I recall not juste what it was hither, but I remember they used an analogie nigh similar to "juste as the seas are not 'appearing to be of water', the world is not 'appearing to be flat'. The world is totally flat of its owne, juste as the seas are totally water of their owne.)
From what I've read, this hath been coming to be a popular - if not the prevailing - belief amongst scientistes at the hither and nowe.
Well, *all* birds share more than twenty characteristics with you and me, such as: eyes (2); feet (2); DNA, amino acids...in short, birds and dinosaurs might be said to be as similar as humans are to rats. So, humans are obviously rats, then, right?
Or maybe just you are. Get real.
Am I really the only one who got the joke? Kudos to you, sir!
Is there not anyone at the USPTO that has seen consumer reviews on (for example) PriceGrabber, NexTag, ePinions, or ANYWHERE?!
It's like patenting the personal computer. Pardon me while I throw up...
Very interesting comment. Mod him up!
This is another great post I've seen here. It's very true. I must have stepped into the wrong slashdot.
Mod him up!
This is one of the most reasonable, rational, balanced, and true comments to found here so far. Mod him up!
Actually, YHWH is God's name as written in Hebrew (as you said, without vowels, because back then Hebrew had no vowel pointing); however, it does not mean simply "I am". It is a verb: causative form, imperfect state, of the Hebrew HWH (ha`wah, "to become"). Therefore, it means, "He Causes to Become." It identifies Him as, among other things, the Creator, the One who causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises, the One who always brings his purposes to realization.
Also, Moses et al wrote God's name down many times; in fact, in the very oldest manuscripts uncovered, the personal Name YHWH has been found about 7,000 times; however, due to a superstition that arose among certain scribes many centuries afterwards (see Matthew 23 for examples of some of the attitudes prevalent at the time), the commandment "Thou shalt not take up the name of YHWH in vain" was taken too literally (sound familiar?), and YHWH came to be considered unpronounceable, although it had been used for about 1,500 years after Moses wrote down the Pentateuch. After vowel pointing was introduced into Hebrew, these scribes put the vowel points for Elohim (God) or Adhonai (The Lord) over the letters YHWH in the manuscripts, and the Name was so replaced with Elohim or Adhonai when reading it aloud. Thus, the original pronunciation for YHWH was lost, and in fact many scribes replaced YHWH entirely when copying manuscripts; this is why the Name is all but nonexistant in the KJV et al.
The common English pronuncation is of course Jehovah, and there are transcriptions for every language into which the Bible has been translated.
Well, just remember how far the flat earth idea came--on top of four columns, on top of some elephants, on top of The Great Turtle That Swims in the Cosmic Sea of Eternity--before it was disproved...
And how far the Earth-Centric system came...and Christmas...
Actually, such practice is quite common. Do you have any idea how much space some articles would take up if they posted every citation?
Now imagine you're just a columnist. How many columnists are going to put 'em all in on every article?
You do have a point, though. I mean, <tinfoil>how many articles do you see--articles that average science geeks as well as much of the scientific community automatically take at face value--that cite every citation?</tinfoil>
(Disclaimer: I Am A Science Geek, albeit a more skeptical one.)
After my first comment, I couldn't be sure whether I was right about that, so I looked in *my* book, and sure enough, I needed to make a correction. Did you have your threshold set too high? If so, you would have missed my reply to myself stating that indeed beta particles are either electrons or positrons (which are just anti-electrons, or electrons with a positive charge).
Everything else I said still stands.
Nope, you're right. Betas are electrons or positrons. Next time, I'll check my 'pedia BEFORE I post.
Crispy Critters is right. You can stop alpha particles in their tracks with a good sheet of paper. They're not going to vaporize anything. Beta particles (which, btw, are PROTONS, not electrons) can be stopped with a plate of aluminum (about 6mm, I think).
Also, neither alphas nor betas make stuff radioactive, as I recall; only neutrons can (I forget whether gamma rays induce radioactivity, but they're lethal).
They say you can't outlaw stupidity...
Would that mean this bill is doomed?
Well, there's an important factor that may or may not make this effective.
;-)
See, most kids these days aren't really interested in voting, in part because they don't really see how it might benefit them, and because many of them are more or less disillusioned with government in general.
On the other hand, how could you NOT be interested in Vicky's Secrets? There are obvious benefits
Well, I was referring to the businesses that were affected, and humorously suggested that as their means of recourse.
Your friend is very funny, though. Incredible.
He hit it on the head. This was an agonizing, tortuous, path to resolution, and it was hardly necessary to drag all the paying customers through it.
Interesting sig you got there...
To keep this on topic: maybe they can poop on the Internet?
So, you're saying it's all about space?
:sniff: It's...beautiful...
Ah, I see. Interesting.
I don't think so. 0 K (Zero Kelvin) is absolute zero (zero thermal energy, basically frozen atoms). Temperatures near this are barely attainable with multi-million-dollar setups. And your dad, by himself, has somehow gotten a computer to function at a temperature of 50 K below absolute zero?
You mean where the sun doesn't shine?
clockless CPU's, which of course--wait for it--don't need a clock. (I realize that other system parts may still need it.) Every once in a while, I hear a tiny thing about clockless chips, but it seems like the Big 2 don't want anything said about them.
Reminder: this comment is on topic.