I don't think anyone realistically expects SS to end now, and that would in effect be stealing what you and others have been promised. But for the distant future, it is good to investigate alternatives to SS.
Speaking more generally to this and other posts about unforeseen catastrophes and people who truly can't care for themselves, most of those who posted here assume that everyone lives in isolation and has nobody else to rely upon if they run into trouble. In the past, the unfortunate's church or community came together and helped him out of his difficulty. That still happens, too! All it does is shift the responsibility from the government to the community. It's much more efficient, a lot less paperwork and fraud, and it draws the community tighter.
This debate is basically a debate of socialism vs. capitalism. It's also raging with respect to welfare and nationalized healthcare. We don't want to go that way any more than we have, the rest of the socialist world needs our drug research!:-)
Thanks for the link to the journal, I appreciate it and will check it out! You are correct that I do not read much about this subject, and when I do read I tend towards books and articles that are not predisposed against creationism. Every individual and organization on this planet carries a bias, but some are more willing than others to bring that bias into the open. (That, incidentally, is why I think it was a mistake to suppress the freedom of speech of those who attached stickers to these textbooks. All they were trying to do is reveal the hidden bias of the textbooks to the students who use them and are unable to recognize that bias themselves.) I appreciate that organizations like Answers in Genesis are willing to reveal their bias and cut through the piles of papers produced on this topic (most of which are biased by their dedication to uncovering the "missing link") to reveal relevant information for those who are devoted to other areas of research and provide a counterbalance to the overwhelming tide of pro-evolution material that you don't even need to seek out. I would guess that evolution-minded individuals tend to avoid reading publications by research institutions like ICR, but saturate their minds with material from fundamentalist evolutionist publications instead, consciously or not. (although no fundamentalist evolutionist publications would label themselves as such) We're not so different in that respect.
I agree that I mis-worded my statement about science "proving" things, simple slip of the fingers on the keyboard in a quick posting.
There is a movement, as demonstrated by the very small act of putting a warning sticker on a textbook, to provide the fair chance for all ideas that you refer to as an ideal for science. I subscribe to that ideal just as you do.
I agree, evolution undeniably does happen, but it does not provide bridges between vastly dissimilar organisms like fish and birds. There is no universally convincing evidence to support that position. (This is a point that we have already disputed, we will not reach an agreement on it.)
The Bible says that God created an original set of creatures, and of course we know that they mutated and microevolved over time.
Your comparison between the age of the Bible and the Earth is based upon your particular assumptions about the age of the Earth. It will not surprise you to learn that I believe the Earth is approximately 6000 years old. Radiometric dating has been proven to fail in many cases and relies upon the uniformitarian approach to world history, which likely is not correct. (we have measured a reduction even in the speed of light in our time)
The writers of the Bible were uniquely inspired by God, so this was no ordinary literary project as you believe. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" --- 2 Tim. 3:16 Many in ancient times suffered from their lack of knowledge regarding the arrangement of the cosmos, I don't see that as an indictment against the Bible, especially since it never explicitly deals with the matter in a literal sense.
Creationism was the dominant ideology until the 20th century and was adhered to by the major scientists of that time that we now admire. It does not conflict with any modern scientific observations when they are properly interpreted. Interpretation is the key. It is what divides our viewpoints as well.;-)
those articles contain are either claims that have been roundly discredited by the scientific community or insignificant nitpicks that say nothing about whether the fossils came from an ancestor to humans.
I haven't read anything recently speaking to these claims, it just seems as though the textbook producers doggedly hang on to old, discredited specimens. There are numerous in-depth articles explaining why it is highly implausible that any of these ape-men were human ancestors, and in fact the articles I listed give brief allusion to these when they say that it is most likely that most of these ape-men are in fact true apes. Evolutionists are simply grasping for straws trying to make intermediate forms from these ordinary creatures.
You don't really believe their BS, do you?
I and a large number of others see the evolutionists as the ones promoting irrational fantasies that can't be proven or reasonably trusted.
Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.
There is a very real danger in doubting the literality of the divine account of Creation as set forward in Genesis. Read this article which touches on the infallibility of God's Word as related to Creation: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-169a.htm God clearly indicates the literality of the Creation account and its associated timescale (the part most often doubted) with the emphasis on "evening...and morning...was the x day" and if you are unable to fully accept that He created every original creature in that 6 day period, you should question the reliability of the rest of the Bible. In fact, the whole basis for the Bible crumbles even if you reject the 6 day time period and substitute millions of years, as many have done. Suddenly, you have death before sin, and God pronouncing everything good, which would then include that death. So then, how does sin change anything? What is there to be saved from if death and the brutal struggle for existence exists even without sin?
I have purchased but not yet read the book "Refuting Compromise", which speaks directly to this issue. Check it out at www.answersingenesis.org. (They have a lot of other great stuff too, including a blurb about this sticker)
I know this has been a fairly theological post, but I feel it is very important. Creationism stands on much stronger footing that evolutionism, and anyone who doubts that should be a true objective scientist and read the materials at www.answersingenesis.org or www.ideacenter.org.
Be more specific about where to look. (I don't believe you can) The intermediate creatures or ancient men cited by evolutionists have all turned out to be regular humans suffering from debilitating, deforming diseases. By the way, we are actually devolving through the process of mutation, not evolving. Ancient man is superior.
Ham radio was my jumping-off point into computers as well. Unfortunately, I never really did anything substantial in it, and stuck with CBs instead of getting licensed (cost reasons, I got my portable emergency CB for $14 from a ham radio auction because of the kind-hearted auctioneer, couldn't find any real ham radios for that price), but I loved reading the ARRL Handbook and building simple communications circuits. I can't really explain how I made the jump to computers from that point, but I do know that I was thrilled by the ability to work at a low level in a PC. I grew up on macs, which I was not allowed to disassemble, so I really appreciated the concept of piecing together an IBM PC of my own. From there, I took up BASIC, started wondering what "Assembly" meant, and how to use it (it was mentioned in my Tandy's manual), and then proceeded to learn assembly language and C.
So, in summary, for me basic electronics taught to me by my Dad led to an interest in ham radio, which led back to an interest in communications electronics, which loosely led to an interest in IBM computers. And now, I'm even moving back into electronics to a certain degree.
It really seems inevitable that kids interested in electronics are also fascinated by computers. Just start simple, LEDs connected to switches and batteries, and then give them a mouser catalog and Forrest Mims' books. Let them take it from there.:-) Another hint, I think almost all kids like crypto to some degree for its "cool factor". It's pretty easy to take advantage of that propensity to motivate them to learn a programming language, especially one like C.
The difference with video games is that they're interactive. Some have likened violent games to "flight simulators for murder." Reading a book or watching a video about flying will never be equivalent to getting into a simulated cockpit and trying the controls. Same concept here. Also, books, videos and other static forms of media are surrounded by freedom of speech issues, so they can't be affected by laws like this one, and rightly so.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone realistically expects SS to end now, and that would in effect be stealing what you and others have been promised. But for the distant future, it is good to investigate alternatives to SS. Speaking more generally to this and other posts about unforeseen catastrophes and people who truly can't care for themselves, most of those who posted here assume that everyone lives in isolation and has nobody else to rely upon if they run into trouble. In the past, the unfortunate's church or community came together and helped him out of his difficulty. That still happens, too! All it does is shift the responsibility from the government to the community. It's much more efficient, a lot less paperwork and fraud, and it draws the community tighter. This debate is basically a debate of socialism vs. capitalism. It's also raging with respect to welfare and nationalized healthcare. We don't want to go that way any more than we have, the rest of the socialist world needs our drug research! :-)
Thanks for the link to the journal, I appreciate it and will check it out! You are correct that I do not read much about this subject, and when I do read I tend towards books and articles that are not predisposed against creationism. Every individual and organization on this planet carries a bias, but some are more willing than others to bring that bias into the open. (That, incidentally, is why I think it was a mistake to suppress the freedom of speech of those who attached stickers to these textbooks. All they were trying to do is reveal the hidden bias of the textbooks to the students who use them and are unable to recognize that bias themselves.) I appreciate that organizations like Answers in Genesis are willing to reveal their bias and cut through the piles of papers produced on this topic (most of which are biased by their dedication to uncovering the "missing link") to reveal relevant information for those who are devoted to other areas of research and provide a counterbalance to the overwhelming tide of pro-evolution material that you don't even need to seek out. I would guess that evolution-minded individuals tend to avoid reading publications by research institutions like ICR, but saturate their minds with material from fundamentalist evolutionist publications instead, consciously or not. (although no fundamentalist evolutionist publications would label themselves as such) We're not so different in that respect.
I agree that I mis-worded my statement about science "proving" things, simple slip of the fingers on the keyboard in a quick posting. There is a movement, as demonstrated by the very small act of putting a warning sticker on a textbook, to provide the fair chance for all ideas that you refer to as an ideal for science. I subscribe to that ideal just as you do.
I agree, evolution undeniably does happen, but it does not provide bridges between vastly dissimilar organisms like fish and birds. There is no universally convincing evidence to support that position. (This is a point that we have already disputed, we will not reach an agreement on it.)
The Bible says that God created an original set of creatures, and of course we know that they mutated and microevolved over time.
Your comparison between the age of the Bible and the Earth is based upon your particular assumptions about the age of the Earth. It will not surprise you to learn that I believe the Earth is approximately 6000 years old. Radiometric dating has been proven to fail in many cases and relies upon the uniformitarian approach to world history, which likely is not correct. (we have measured a reduction even in the speed of light in our time)
The writers of the Bible were uniquely inspired by God, so this was no ordinary literary project as you believe. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" --- 2 Tim. 3:16 Many in ancient times suffered from their lack of knowledge regarding the arrangement of the cosmos, I don't see that as an indictment against the Bible, especially since it never explicitly deals with the matter in a literal sense.
Creationism was the dominant ideology until the 20th century and was adhered to by the major scientists of that time that we now admire. It does not conflict with any modern scientific observations when they are properly interpreted. Interpretation is the key. It is what divides our viewpoints as well. ;-)
those articles contain are either claims that have been roundly discredited by the scientific community or insignificant nitpicks that say nothing about whether the fossils came from an ancestor to humans.
I haven't read anything recently speaking to these claims, it just seems as though the textbook producers doggedly hang on to old, discredited specimens. There are numerous in-depth articles explaining why it is highly implausible that any of these ape-men were human ancestors, and in fact the articles I listed give brief allusion to these when they say that it is most likely that most of these ape-men are in fact true apes. Evolutionists are simply grasping for straws trying to make intermediate forms from these ordinary creatures.
You don't really believe their BS, do you?
I and a large number of others see the evolutionists as the ones promoting irrational fantasies that can't be proven or reasonably trusted.
There's some pretty good scientific evidence for the Biblical creation account. Check out Answers in Genesis and The IDEA Center.
Lots of general answers about ape-man claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anth ropology.asp
Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.
www.ideacenter.org is also an awesome resource.
There is a very real danger in doubting the literality of the divine account of Creation as set forward in Genesis. Read this article which touches on the infallibility of God's Word as related to Creation: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-169a.htm God clearly indicates the literality of the Creation account and its associated timescale (the part most often doubted) with the emphasis on "evening...and morning...was the x day" and if you are unable to fully accept that He created every original creature in that 6 day period, you should question the reliability of the rest of the Bible. In fact, the whole basis for the Bible crumbles even if you reject the 6 day time period and substitute millions of years, as many have done. Suddenly, you have death before sin, and God pronouncing everything good, which would then include that death. So then, how does sin change anything? What is there to be saved from if death and the brutal struggle for existence exists even without sin?
I have purchased but not yet read the book "Refuting Compromise", which speaks directly to this issue. Check it out at www.answersingenesis.org. (They have a lot of other great stuff too, including a blurb about this sticker)
I know this has been a fairly theological post, but I feel it is very important. Creationism stands on much stronger footing that evolutionism, and anyone who doubts that should be a true objective scientist and read the materials at www.answersingenesis.org or www.ideacenter.org.
Keep asking those important questions. :-)
Be more specific about where to look. (I don't believe you can) The intermediate creatures or ancient men cited by evolutionists have all turned out to be regular humans suffering from debilitating, deforming diseases. By the way, we are actually devolving through the process of mutation, not evolving. Ancient man is superior.
Ham radio was my jumping-off point into computers as well. Unfortunately, I never really did anything substantial in it, and stuck with CBs instead of getting licensed (cost reasons, I got my portable emergency CB for $14 from a ham radio auction because of the kind-hearted auctioneer, couldn't find any real ham radios for that price), but I loved reading the ARRL Handbook and building simple communications circuits. I can't really explain how I made the jump to computers from that point, but I do know that I was thrilled by the ability to work at a low level in a PC. I grew up on macs, which I was not allowed to disassemble, so I really appreciated the concept of piecing together an IBM PC of my own. From there, I took up BASIC, started wondering what "Assembly" meant, and how to use it (it was mentioned in my Tandy's manual), and then proceeded to learn assembly language and C. So, in summary, for me basic electronics taught to me by my Dad led to an interest in ham radio, which led back to an interest in communications electronics, which loosely led to an interest in IBM computers. And now, I'm even moving back into electronics to a certain degree. It really seems inevitable that kids interested in electronics are also fascinated by computers. Just start simple, LEDs connected to switches and batteries, and then give them a mouser catalog and Forrest Mims' books. Let them take it from there. :-) Another hint, I think almost all kids like crypto to some degree for its "cool factor". It's pretty easy to take advantage of that propensity to motivate them to learn a programming language, especially one like C.
The difference with video games is that they're interactive. Some have likened violent games to "flight simulators for murder." Reading a book or watching a video about flying will never be equivalent to getting into a simulated cockpit and trying the controls. Same concept here. Also, books, videos and other static forms of media are surrounded by freedom of speech issues, so they can't be affected by laws like this one, and rightly so.