There are books that say Plato and Aristotle ran around Greece, too
There are also historical records. There are books written *by* these people. The only records of Jesus having lived are written by people trying to spread a religion in his name. He wrote nothing. No impartial source is aware of his existence, and given the stir he is suppoosed to have made in his time it is reasonable to expect *something* in the historical record.
Relatively speaking, there is a ton more manuscript evidence that Jesus was here than any of the above
Care to give examples not in the bible?
And, you put yourself in quite a box once you postulate that Physics is the only thing in the universe.
Where exactly did I postulate this?
You proposed one thing, god.
Given the utter lack of evidence, and completely contradictory nature of such a thing, I choose not to believe you.
Not to mention opening yourself up to becoming incredibly arrogant.
I think the arrogance comes in thinking you have the ultimate answer.
Same goes for the Hebrew Bible (although that one seems to have been fulfilled with the establishment of Israel).
Much as "Manifest Destiny" was fulfilled when we used it as an excuse to kill everyone else already living there.
Telling them that god said so is a good way to motivate a people into murdering others for what is theirs.
The Hebrews bragged about committing genocide to take the land "god gave them" in the bible.
I mean, why doesnt anyone take any notice of what is written in the Bible, and the evidence for its scripture?
Why is it that no one I've heard say something like this can ever come up with such a piece of evidence?
For example, Noahs ark has been found. It size and position is exactly as described in the bible. Nobody cares except those who are looking for truth.
I've heard of several people saying they've found it. Which one is true? How big was this boat exactly? Could you fit two of every animal on earth (including dinosaurs!) in it?
A much more simple example would be the existance of Jesus Christ. Well, there is no doubt he existed, is there?
Yes, plenty.
There is no evidence outside of the bible (that I am aware of) that he ever did really exist.
Please provide any if you have it.
History is based on his existance.
No, history predates his existence. For evidence even you would believe see the bible.
I refuse to believe that all life on earth was a fluke.
Which is the end result of all creationist "science". A refusal to see the evidence if they can't refute it.
Out of nowhere, pure chance, fluke. What rubbish.
So it came out of god who came out of nowhere, pure chance, fluke. What rubbish.
It is named after Theodore and Audrey Geisel, residents of San Diego (more accurately I think Coronado).
Not Coronado.
More accurately La Jolla. Right above Black's beach. Ever walked north along the beach from Scripps' pier? Seen the little round room right on the beach with a track going up the hill for a cart nearby?
That's his house on top of the hill and his Studio on the beach.
evolutionism claims to be backed up by science, but if you trace it back far enough, you find that it requires, at the very least, one magical *poof* to get things started. Creationism requires a similar number of *poofs,* but it also acknowledges its need.
Creationism requires an extra *poof*.
god saying *poof* is the same *poof*.
God being created requires another *poof*
Creationism will jump through crazy hoops denying the need for the extra unnecessary *poof*
So to me (regardless of some people's debate ethics), creationism is more intellectually honest than evolutionism
So by your own argument, creationism is less intellectually honest.
Agreed?
Whether you choose to believe them or not, people observed Jesus walking around after he died.
No, there is a book that says people saw this.
There is little, if any, evidence outside of the bible that there was ever a person Jesus, let alone a deity.
You can't just dismiss it becasue it might be hard to understand. It's not hard to understand. Anything at all can follow once you accept the "magic man in the sky" idea.
You can dismiss it after evaluating the evidence and seeing that there is almost none for the "truth" of the book, and lots of evidence to the contrary.
The problem is that you need to believe *first* that there is a God.
I have alot more respect for people who are open minded.
It seems like you are probably pretty open minded on most things, but given that you have "faith", can you honestly say you are open minded about the existence of god?
Can you conceive of any evidence at all that could theoretically change your mind on this issue, even if said evidence is impossible in reality?
This isn't an attack, just a suggestion that complete open mindedness and faith might be mutually exclusive.
A rigorous analysis has shown that in some ways of counting votes, Bush won. In some ways of counting votes, Gore won.
In the way that matters though, if the entire state was recounted, Gore would have won.
Throw in the fact that the State of Florida (run by a Bush) illegally put 100,000 voters, mostly black, on the felon list and struck them from the voter roster you will see that the voters were fucked.
I always wondered why Creationism isn't viewed as the ultimate expression of Occam's Razor....
Simple.
Ask where did the universe come from.
I respond, "I don't know".
The creationist responds, "God made it".
Ask the creationist where god came from. They respond, "I don't know".
So you have 2 answers: I don't know, which are essentially the same answer to the same question.
The creationist tries to hide his ignorance behind another lair.
Occam's Razor cuts that lair away.
No matter what your theory for the origin of the universe, creation adds extra useless lairs.
That is why Occam's Razor doesn't yield creationism in any sense.
As for evolution vs. creationism. You're right. Both are unprovable theories.
Not true.
Creationism is not a theory. It is a belief with absolutely zero evidence.
But the bible's posotion is easily defensible.
Absolutely false. It is in no way whatsoever defensible. You can choose to believe it in the face of all the untruths in it, but that is a choice, not a defense.
I'll give only one example, though if requested, I can ( and will) give more.
Please give any. This is so blatently not an example.
The biblical account of the flood says that the flood was caused not by rain (although it did rain), but by water coming up from the ground, and tearing the earth, East from West. This is important. If the tearing happens east from west, this will cause the mountain ranges. And they'll run from north to south. That's testable, and it passes the test.
The biblical account of the flood is an example of plagiarism. It was stolen from the story of Gilgamesh which predates the bible. Get that. The story predates the creation of the god of the bible. Regardless of whether this could explain the mountain ranges, there are better explanations which take into account the fact that the mountain ranges predate the flood. Now given also the fact that the flood was a *local* not a global occurrence, your example clearly doesn't hold water;-)
So go ahead, and attempt to give an actual defense of the bible which doesn't already assume belief.
This is just a case of this computer company covering their butt having your software validate on their system when you use it
It's not even that.
Their software doesn't contact them. You choose to contact them to register the software if, after using it for a while, you like it enough to keep using it.
the only thing thats failed in that time is my mouse.
That, my friend is bad luck.
The only mouse I've ever seen break is an *old* IBM 2 button mouse that I stepped on *hard*.
I still use it, but sometimes I have to manually unclick the right button.
Seriously, how do you break a mouse?
Hard drives... that's a different story.
Speeding kills people, 'copyright violation' does not.
This is a bunch of crap. Speeding does *not* kill people.
Idiots driving slowly in the passing lane are the ones who cause problems on the road. I could drive 100 mph on the freeway with no problems until someone driving 50 pulls out right in front of me for no purpose.
I can generally drive much faster in the slow lane since everyone gets on the freeway and then immediately gets over 3 lanes to slam on the brakes and get behind the line of cars who did the same thing.
Speeding is not inherently dangerous. Idiots are.
with IE I haven't found a way of installing multiple versions
Ouch!
I usually test it with NS and IE (various versions) on a Mac and NS and IE on the other monitor under VirtualPC under a few versions of windows.
I ask friends running a whole grip of different combos to look at it too before I release it.
Maybe there are just too many guns in circulation in the US to EVER get the shit back into the horse, but you don't even seem to be trying.
If this is true, then you would have to be a fool to try.
The only possible result of trying in this case is to make sure that criminals have guns and know that their potential victims do not.
It's fine to argue what ifs. If, in the beginning, guns had been banned in the US, maybe it would be better now. Given the *fact* that they were not banned before, banning them now would be lethal to many innocent people.
Remember the Heinlein story, I think it was "The Man Who Sold the Moon"
It was.
where the guy got funding for a moon mission by working with soft drink companies about putting great big product logos on the surface of the moon.
He was actually smart enough to know that it would be a bad idea. He sold them not on the idea of putting their logo on the moon, but on the threat that their competitors would.
He would have never really done it because he would have become the most hated man in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like 20 cents for every time my name address and phone # has been sold...I could buy a couple new toys for my computer.
You could probably buy a couple more computers for your new toys as well.
There are books that say Plato and Aristotle ran around Greece, too
There are also historical records. There are books written *by* these people. The only records of Jesus having lived are written by people trying to spread a religion in his name. He wrote nothing. No impartial source is aware of his existence, and given the stir he is suppoosed to have made in his time it is reasonable to expect *something* in the historical record.
Relatively speaking, there is a ton more manuscript evidence that Jesus was here than any of the above
Care to give examples not in the bible?
And, you put yourself in quite a box once you postulate that Physics is the only thing in the universe.
Where exactly did I postulate this?
You proposed one thing, god.
Given the utter lack of evidence, and completely contradictory nature of such a thing, I choose not to believe you.
Not to mention opening yourself up to becoming incredibly arrogant.
I think the arrogance comes in thinking you have the ultimate answer.
Same goes for the Hebrew Bible (although that one seems to have been fulfilled with the establishment of Israel).
Much as "Manifest Destiny" was fulfilled when we used it as an excuse to kill everyone else already living there.
Telling them that god said so is a good way to motivate a people into murdering others for what is theirs.
The Hebrews bragged about committing genocide to take the land "god gave them" in the bible.
I mean, why doesnt anyone take any notice of what is written in the Bible, and the evidence for its scripture?
Why is it that no one I've heard say something like this can ever come up with such a piece of evidence?
For example, Noahs ark has been found. It size and position is exactly as described in the bible. Nobody cares except those who are looking for truth.
I've heard of several people saying they've found it. Which one is true? How big was this boat exactly? Could you fit two of every animal on earth (including dinosaurs!) in it?
A much more simple example would be the existance of Jesus Christ. Well, there is no doubt he existed, is there?
Yes, plenty.
There is no evidence outside of the bible (that I am aware of) that he ever did really exist.
Please provide any if you have it.
History is based on his existance.
No, history predates his existence. For evidence even you would believe see the bible.
I refuse to believe that all life on earth was a fluke.
Which is the end result of all creationist "science". A refusal to see the evidence if they can't refute it.
Out of nowhere, pure chance, fluke. What rubbish.
So it came out of god who came out of nowhere, pure chance, fluke. What rubbish.
It is named after Theodore and Audrey Geisel, residents of San Diego (more accurately I think Coronado).
Not Coronado.
More accurately La Jolla. Right above Black's beach. Ever walked north along the beach from Scripps' pier? Seen the little round room right on the beach with a track going up the hill for a cart nearby?
That's his house on top of the hill and his Studio on the beach.
evolutionism claims to be backed up by science, but if you trace it back far enough, you find that it requires, at the very least, one magical *poof* to get things started. Creationism requires a similar number of *poofs,* but it also acknowledges its need.
Creationism requires an extra *poof*.
god saying *poof* is the same *poof*.
God being created requires another *poof*
Creationism will jump through crazy hoops denying the need for the extra unnecessary *poof*
So to me (regardless of some people's debate ethics), creationism is more intellectually honest than evolutionism
So by your own argument, creationism is less intellectually honest.
Agreed?
Whether you choose to believe them or not, people observed Jesus walking around after he died.
No, there is a book that says people saw this.
There is little, if any, evidence outside of the bible that there was ever a person Jesus, let alone a deity.
You can't just dismiss it becasue it might be hard to understand.
It's not hard to understand. Anything at all can follow once you accept the "magic man in the sky" idea.
You can dismiss it after evaluating the evidence and seeing that there is almost none for the "truth" of the book, and lots of evidence to the contrary.
The problem is that you need to believe *first* that there is a God.
I have alot more respect for people who are open minded.
It seems like you are probably pretty open minded on most things, but given that you have "faith", can you honestly say you are open minded about the existence of god?
Can you conceive of any evidence at all that could theoretically change your mind on this issue, even if said evidence is impossible in reality?
This isn't an attack, just a suggestion that complete open mindedness and faith might be mutually exclusive.
A rigorous analysis has shown that in some ways of counting votes, Bush won. In some ways of counting votes, Gore won.
In the way that matters though, if the entire state was recounted, Gore would have won.
Throw in the fact that the State of Florida (run by a Bush) illegally put 100,000 voters, mostly black, on the felon list and struck them from the voter roster you will see that the voters were fucked.
insects don't have booklungs
OK, I'll bite.
What's a booklung?
and the frequent treatment failures due to fact that people who get TB tend to be, well, not the most cooperative of patients...
What does this mean?
I always wondered why Creationism isn't viewed as the ultimate expression of Occam's Razor....
Simple.
Ask where did the universe come from.
I respond, "I don't know".
The creationist responds, "God made it".
Ask the creationist where god came from. They respond, "I don't know".
So you have 2 answers: I don't know, which are essentially the same answer to the same question.
The creationist tries to hide his ignorance behind another lair.
Occam's Razor cuts that lair away.
No matter what your theory for the origin of the universe, creation adds extra useless lairs.
That is why Occam's Razor doesn't yield creationism in any sense.
As for evolution vs. creationism. You're right. Both are unprovable theories.
;-)
Not true.
Creationism is not a theory. It is a belief with absolutely zero evidence.
But the bible's posotion is easily defensible.
Absolutely false. It is in no way whatsoever defensible. You can choose to believe it in the face of all the untruths in it, but that is a choice, not a defense.
I'll give only one example, though if requested, I can ( and will) give more.
Please give any. This is so blatently not an example.
The biblical account of the flood says that the flood was caused not by rain (although it did rain), but by water coming up from the ground, and tearing the earth, East from West. This is important. If the tearing happens east from west, this will cause the mountain ranges. And they'll run from north to south. That's testable, and it passes the test.
The biblical account of the flood is an example of plagiarism. It was stolen from the story of Gilgamesh which predates the bible. Get that. The story predates the creation of the god of the bible. Regardless of whether this could explain the mountain ranges, there are better explanations which take into account the fact that the mountain ranges predate the flood. Now given also the fact that the flood was a *local* not a global occurrence, your example clearly doesn't hold water
So go ahead, and attempt to give an actual defense of the bible which doesn't already assume belief.
This is just a case of this computer company covering their butt having your software validate on their system when you use it
It's not even that.
Their software doesn't contact them. You choose to contact them to register the software if, after using it for a while, you like it enough to keep using it.
the only thing thats failed in that time is my mouse.
That, my friend is bad luck.
The only mouse I've ever seen break is an *old* IBM 2 button mouse that I stepped on *hard*.
I still use it, but sometimes I have to manually unclick the right button.
Seriously, how do you break a mouse?
Hard drives... that's a different story.
Pictures of MIG flown by Larry flying over competitors corporate HQ, surface to air missiles a-flying
Well, unless the HQ is in the air and the MiG is on the ground, this would be pretty bad for Larry.
Imagine what an orbiting interferometer will do
;-)
Just get in the way, I'd imagine
Speeding kills people, 'copyright violation' does not.
This is a bunch of crap. Speeding does *not* kill people.
Idiots driving slowly in the passing lane are the ones who cause problems on the road. I could drive 100 mph on the freeway with no problems until someone driving 50 pulls out right in front of me for no purpose.
I can generally drive much faster in the slow lane since everyone gets on the freeway and then immediately gets over 3 lanes to slam on the brakes and get behind the line of cars who did the same thing.
Speeding is not inherently dangerous. Idiots are.
It's been released for what, like a week?
That *is* still beta regardless if it's from MS or not.
with IE I haven't found a way of installing multiple versions
Ouch!
I usually test it with NS and IE (various versions) on a Mac and NS and IE on the other monitor under VirtualPC under a few versions of windows.
I ask friends running a whole grip of different combos to look at it too before I release it.
And if you divide a sibling variable by a knife variable, perl will have none of that mess, you'll have to garbage collect the mess yourself.
Which is, of course, the point.
I'd rather try to parse "sibling by knife divide error in random.pl at line 1456"
Than a completely random error.
Hot tip:
Don't use modules until you understand them.
I develop software for a living...
When I serve this URL up to IE 6 under Windows 2000 (maybe other versions; that was the only Windows IE I tried)
Parse error...
These 2 lines are soooooo incompatible as to be ridiculous.
You *only* test on beta software (IE6) ?!?
And you do this for a living?!?
right click on a page and get a listing of all the images contain therein or all of the links contained therein
Which you've been able to do in Netscape since at least version 3
Maybe there are just too many guns in circulation in the US to EVER get the shit back into the horse, but you don't even seem to be trying.
If this is true, then you would have to be a fool to try.
The only possible result of trying in this case is to make sure that criminals have guns and know that their potential victims do not.
It's fine to argue what ifs. If, in the beginning, guns had been banned in the US, maybe it would be better now. Given the *fact* that they were not banned before, banning them now would be lethal to many innocent people.
Remember the Heinlein story, I think it was "The Man Who Sold the Moon"
It was.
where the guy got funding for a moon mission by working with soft drink companies about putting great big product logos on the surface of the moon.
He was actually smart enough to know that it would be a bad idea. He sold them not on the idea of putting their logo on the moon, but on the threat that their competitors would.
He would have never really done it because he would have become the most hated man in the world.