I would not disagree with anything you said.
My point was not that holy wars are ok. Emphatically they are not. But they are irrelevant to the evolution-creation debate. DrYak is merely stating his opinion that religion is good for nothing more than starting holy wars. Troll or flamebait, you might say.
Holy wars (at least in the Christian realm) are started by abuse of religion in the first place, which sin inclines many people to do.
This is such a flawed argument that it's hardly worth responding to.
First, belief in God does not preclude finding out how things work. In fact, that is the express command of God in Genesis 1:28. You ought to do a little research before starting additional trolls.
...although it also managed to generate a lot of holy wars.
You happened to come across the fact that sin exists in this world. This does not mean that all religious people support holy wars or think they are right. Non-religious people started a lot of wars as well. Again, no support for your argument. Note that many of the fathers of science were Christian. And not just because of the time. Read their works and you will see they were more than nominal christians.
...Second, EVOLUTION IS NOT PURELY RANDOM. Most moderne life form have (thru evlotion) acquired means to 're-use' what has been done before (example: by recombining and reshuffling functionnal parts) and evolve and adapt faster than just waiting until it happens by randomness.
Reshuffling requires random acts... when's the last time you conciously reshuffled your genes? Reshuffling is not evolution. Evolution ultimately teaches creation of new information, something never demonstrated by evolutionists. Besides, most reshuffling results in loss of information. For each step in the process, and whenever an evolutionist finds more detail about how something works in nature, that person should be required to calculate the probability of that particular detail evolving, and combining that with the probablility of everything else evolving, to put everything in perspective....Not that that would help. Your beginning premise is flawed anyhow.
NOTE: I *do* work in a genetic lab. A *do* know what I'm speaking about)
Doesn't mean a thing. I can find plenty of people that work in such a lab that believe in 6 day creation. In fact, you have shown that you are only focused on the small realm of knowledge that you know without considering anything else. And even then you are are wrong.
Amazing how ignorant people make baseless claims like this without doing a little research first. I am currently reading a series of essays of 50 PhDs advocating literal creation in six days... They are PhDs in a wide variety of scientific fields, including biology, biochemistry, geology, and physics, to name a few. (The book is called "In Six Days"). There are plenty others out there including here, for example.
And the commentator gets rated 'Insightful'. Speaks to the wisdom of most slashdotters.
On the flip side, most Christians do not read the Bible closely enough to properly answer the arguments that evolutions try to pose against creationism. Most importantly, they fail to reckon from the perspective of original sin (most of them don't believe in it anyway) and sin that blinds man to truth (John 9:39, John 9:40,41). It fails to reckon with man's bondage to to sin, so that he ALWAYS seeks the lie, because he by nature hates God and seeks the lie. (Ephesians 2:1-6, John 15:18-25). This results in them proposing poor responses to arguments for evolution, or leaving out things altogether.
The number of people believing or advocating an idea bears no weight as to the truth of the matter. In fact, most often the majority is wrong, as history has proven again and again. Yet man in his pride always likes to think he is more intelligent than his predecessors.
It is humorous how the majority of slashdotters trying to argue why God should not exist argue from the perspective of what they think a God should be. Of course, it is almost always only something a little above a human, and a God prone to many of the human weaknesses found in humans. Rather ludicrous, don't you think, that man should define God based on his feelings about what he thinks God should be?
Evolutionists make science their god, and anything that cannot be observed in nature through some means or another does not exist. Thus they purposely cut themselves off from ever even entertaining the possibility that there is more than that. In fact, they run in the opposite direction. They won't even entertain any alternate theories to evolution anymore, even if it was made by a non-religious person.
Sometimes I wish all the evolution and ID stories would be left off of slashdot. They seldom result in any constructive comments anyway. Perhaps it's time to filter them out of my list.
And we are supposed to trust the NY Times?... Most major newspapers, and TV News networks have questionable credibility themselves, as we've seen numerous times in the past year or so.
Any time there is potential for a political agenda (read... any negative story about Bush), the above-mentioned media types (and more) have questionable credibility as well.
And no, I don't think Bush is necessarily better than them either.
Hmmm... so how do you know that your whole salvation is not a parable?... and how are we going to determine what in the Bible is a parable and what is not?
How about: When Jesus taught in parables, it was obvious that he was doing so, such as "And he spake this parable..." (Luke 18:9, 5:36, 6:39, 8:4; Mark 12:1, etc.)... and how about Mark 4:34: "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples"... sounds to me like he often spoke to large crowds in parables, but explained what he meant by the parable later. Why? Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 might give you some answer.
If you make the decision about what to take literally (i.e., not Genesis 1), you might as well throw out the whole Bible as open to whatever interpretation you see fit (i.e., evolution)
Besides, are you denying that God could create the world in 7 days... or do you prefer to 'reduce' your god to evolution?
Don't give me that line about... what about the fossils, and the carbon-dating age, etc., etc. Do you know what a 'brand-new' world would look like? God could create the world in whatever state he desired.
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." - I Corinthians 1:25
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" - I Corinthians 1:27
Ever try to run a lower version of the full copy of Acrobat alongside a newer version of the reader? In your web browser, the older version of the plugin will always be loaded, no matter how many times you reinstall the newer version of the reader.
That and the whole problems with the button(s) on the MS Word toolbar have dramatically lowered my opinion of Adobe Acrobat.
I don't have a BS in CS, but I do have a BS in Civil Engineering, along with a minor in CS. To me, it has hilighted the multitude of opportunities to streamline processes in the workplace when you have a knowledge of two fields. I could go on for quite a while about all the ways I have been able to make things more efficient in the workplace simply because of a little programming.
Knowing two different fields allows you to easily identify places where knowledge from both fields can help each other.
"Compare that to the Java plugin requirement, which, sad to say, is pretty far behind in availability on most PCs."
I totally agree. Also, in my experience, most Java applets are slow, at least in the intial load. Finally, I have yet to see any complex Java applets that are well designed from a UI perspective, though that's probably more an issue of poor understanding of UI issues.
Dual screens are nearly indispensible for web design. If you want to keep a web tutorial open on one screen, and your code/web site on the other, dual screens are the way to go.
It's also great for coding on one screen and previewing in the other.
Just a warning... once you go there, you will never want to go back to a puny single screen of desktop real estate.
Slashdot Mirror
I would not disagree with anything you said. My point was not that holy wars are ok. Emphatically they are not. But they are irrelevant to the evolution-creation debate. DrYak is merely stating his opinion that religion is good for nothing more than starting holy wars. Troll or flamebait, you might say. Holy wars (at least in the Christian realm) are started by abuse of religion in the first place, which sin inclines many people to do.
This is such a flawed argument that it's hardly worth responding to.
...although it also managed to generate a lot of holy wars.
...Second, EVOLUTION IS NOT PURELY RANDOM. Most moderne life form have (thru evlotion) acquired means to 're-use' what has been done before (example: by recombining and reshuffling functionnal parts) and evolve and adapt faster than just waiting until it happens by randomness.
...Not that that would help. Your beginning premise is flawed anyhow.
First, belief in God does not preclude finding out how things work. In fact, that is the express command of God in Genesis 1:28. You ought to do a little research before starting additional trolls.
You happened to come across the fact that sin exists in this world. This does not mean that all religious people support holy wars or think they are right. Non-religious people started a lot of wars as well. Again, no support for your argument. Note that many of the fathers of science were Christian. And not just because of the time. Read their works and you will see they were more than nominal christians.
Reshuffling requires random acts... when's the last time you conciously reshuffled your genes? Reshuffling is not evolution. Evolution ultimately teaches creation of new information, something never demonstrated by evolutionists. Besides, most reshuffling results in loss of information. For each step in the process, and whenever an evolutionist finds more detail about how something works in nature, that person should be required to calculate the probability of that particular detail evolving, and combining that with the probablility of everything else evolving, to put everything in perspective.
NOTE: I *do* work in a genetic lab. A *do* know what I'm speaking about)
Doesn't mean a thing. I can find plenty of people that work in such a lab that believe in 6 day creation. In fact, you have shown that you are only focused on the small realm of knowledge that you know without considering anything else. And even then you are are wrong.
Amazing how ignorant people make baseless claims like this without doing a little research first. I am currently reading a series of essays of 50 PhDs advocating literal creation in six days... They are PhDs in a wide variety of scientific fields, including biology, biochemistry, geology, and physics, to name a few.
(The book is called "In Six Days"). There are plenty others out there including here, for example.
And the commentator gets rated 'Insightful'. Speaks to the wisdom of most slashdotters.
On the flip side, most Christians do not read the Bible closely enough to properly answer the arguments that evolutions try to pose against creationism. Most importantly, they fail to reckon from the perspective of original sin (most of them don't believe in it anyway) and sin that blinds man to truth (John 9:39, John 9:40,41). It fails to reckon with man's bondage to to sin, so that he ALWAYS seeks the lie, because he by nature hates God and seeks the lie. (Ephesians 2:1-6, John 15:18-25). This results in them proposing poor responses to arguments for evolution, or leaving out things altogether.
The number of people believing or advocating an idea bears no weight as to the truth of the matter. In fact, most often the majority is wrong, as history has proven again and again. Yet man in his pride always likes to think he is more intelligent than his predecessors.
It is humorous how the majority of slashdotters trying to argue why God should not exist argue from the perspective of what they think a God should be. Of course, it is almost always only something a little above a human, and a God prone to many of the human weaknesses found in humans. Rather ludicrous, don't you think, that man should define God based on his feelings about what he thinks God should be?
Evolutionists make science their god, and anything that cannot be observed in nature through some means or another does not exist. Thus they purposely cut themselves off from ever even entertaining the possibility that there is more than that. In fact, they run in the opposite direction. They won't even entertain any alternate theories to evolution anymore, even if it was made by a non-religious person.
Sometimes I wish all the evolution and ID stories would be left off of slashdot. They seldom result in any constructive comments anyway. Perhaps it's time to filter them out of my list.
And we are supposed to trust the NY Times?... Most major newspapers, and TV News networks have questionable credibility themselves, as we've seen numerous times in the past year or so.
Any time there is potential for a political agenda (read... any negative story about Bush), the above-mentioned media types (and more) have questionable credibility as well.
And no, I don't think Bush is necessarily better than them either.
Hmmm... so how do you know that your whole salvation is not a parable?... and how are we going to determine what in the Bible is a parable and what is not?
How about: When Jesus taught in parables, it was obvious that he was doing so, such as "And he spake this parable..." (Luke 18:9, 5:36, 6:39, 8:4; Mark 12:1, etc.)... and how about Mark 4:34: "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples"... sounds to me like he often spoke to large crowds in parables, but explained what he meant by the parable later. Why? Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 might give you some answer.
If you make the decision about what to take literally (i.e., not Genesis 1), you might as well throw out the whole Bible as open to whatever interpretation you see fit (i.e., evolution)
Besides, are you denying that God could create the world in 7 days... or do you prefer to 'reduce' your god to evolution?
Don't give me that line about... what about the fossils, and the carbon-dating age, etc., etc. Do you know what a 'brand-new' world would look like? God could create the world in whatever state he desired.
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." - I Corinthians 1:25
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" - I Corinthians 1:27
I agree. Today's philosophy is that it's cool to be ignorant about certain things, otherwise you get labeled a 'geek'/'nerd'.
But hey, the big bad Internet will either educate them or eliminate them... now there's some evolution/natural selection I can understand.
'Just leave the real explination and put "Install this to fix the problem" at the bottom of the page for the idiots.'
Watch for the next phishing scheme with a link to "Install this to fix the problem" somewhere on the page.
Ever try to run a lower version of the full copy of Acrobat alongside a newer version of the reader? In your web browser, the older version of the plugin will always be loaded, no matter how many times you reinstall the newer version of the reader. That and the whole problems with the button(s) on the MS Word toolbar have dramatically lowered my opinion of Adobe Acrobat.
I don't have a BS in CS, but I do have a BS in Civil Engineering, along with a minor in CS. To me, it has hilighted the multitude of opportunities to streamline processes in the workplace when you have a knowledge of two fields. I could go on for quite a while about all the ways I have been able to make things more efficient in the workplace simply because of a little programming.
Knowing two different fields allows you to easily identify places where knowledge from both fields can help each other.
"Compare that to the Java plugin requirement, which, sad to say, is pretty far behind in availability on most PCs."
I totally agree. Also, in my experience, most Java applets are slow, at least in the intial load. Finally, I have yet to see any complex Java applets that are well designed from a UI perspective, though that's probably more an issue of poor understanding of UI issues.
Dual screens are nearly indispensible for web design. If you want to keep a web tutorial open on one screen, and your code/web site on the other, dual screens are the way to go. It's also great for coding on one screen and previewing in the other. Just a warning... once you go there, you will never want to go back to a puny single screen of desktop real estate.