I'm with you there, GryMor. Baen's Webscriptions service is awesome. I've bought dozens of E-books from them in the past year. Zero DRM, and I don't need to worry about misplacing books:). The books are also a few bucks cheaper than print. Now they just need to get some more publishers to buy in to the concept.
A lot of the spice addicts I've talked to have been familiar with the Ring of Fire. It may depend on the type of pepper. I can douse my food with hot sauce, and not have any problems afterward. However, five star Thai food pretty consistently burns twice for me.
I would have to say... yes. I'm a freshman in college, majoring in CS. I'm earning a comparable amount with a part-time internship. This is in Boise, Idaho.
Reading this, it states that no plants of the field had yet sprung up when humans were created. This does not mean there were NO plants, it means there were no CULTIVATED plants. Trees aren't "plants of the field".
It continues to describe the creation of Adam and Eve. This also does not contradict Genesis 1. It is a more detailed account of that creation. Saying "God created Man and Woman" in no way contradicts "God created Adam then Eve".
In this translation, it states "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." This would seem to indicate that the animals had been formed before Adam was, and they were presented to him later for naming.
Because from God's perspective, death isn't a bad thing. God KNOWS there's an afterlife. I believe He is more concerned about our emotional and cultural wellbeing. God insisted that certain groups of people be exterminated - not because he hated them, but because he knew that the Israelite culture would have a lot of issues otherwise.
Murder is the unjustified termination of a human life. The question is, what qualifies as "unjustified"? In regard to the issue at hand, is the burden of childbirth and the adoption process sufficient justification to terminate a life? I feel it isn't, but so far the courts disagree with me.
Okay, I gotta know: what do you think the appropriate consequence is for ripping on an unnamed professor?
I think I would've gone into the student's room while he was in class, plastered gay porn everywhere, and written "Who's the cockmaster now? BWAHAHAHA!" on the wall in red marker.
Okay, since I don't feel like responding to each individual dense poster, I WAS BEING SARCASTIC when I said "violence never solved anything". The next person who doesn't pick up on the sarcasm is getting hit in the head with a chair!
Sorry, doesn't work that way. Remember, "violence never solved anything". Smack anyone and get suspended. It matters less and less whether you're at school. Oh, and your parents'll get sued.
Usually those arguments are not to prove anything, but to show that a certain thing is not impossible. They are trying to say that the scientific evidence doesn't disprove Noah's Ark. My proposals were not based on the Bible, they were showing how this discovery could fit within special creation. Maybe Adam DID have a microwave oven;-).
Well, as one of the more Fundamentalist Christians on/., I'll attempt this one ^_^. I'm hardly an expert on matters theological or scientific, but the first thought would be... they're humans who have a genetic tendency toward small size. There's no reason this couldn't be a population-wide trait and still fit with the Bible. The only dispute would be time of the change, as some Christians maintain a 9,000-ish year old earth.
Another direction to approach this from would be that, while they are tool-users, they aren't actually humans. They're just another creation of God that happens to resemble us, while not being created in His image (as spiritual beings). I would lean toward the first interpretation rather than this one.
Feel free to tear either of these apart, preferably with REASONED arguments rather than foaming at the mouth.
Creationists are usually not opposed to studying evolution, we're more opposed to Darwinism. Evolution says species change over time, Darwinism says life originated through evolution, and all diversity is created solely through natural selection acting on random mutations. One is a scientifically valid statement. The other is religion.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you there, GryMor. Baen's Webscriptions service is awesome. I've bought dozens of E-books from them in the past year. Zero DRM, and I don't need to worry about misplacing books :). The books are also a few bucks cheaper than print. Now they just need to get some more publishers to buy in to the concept.
Makes me glad I live in an apartment in Idaho. Your savings are about double my total bill for utilities.
A lot of the spice addicts I've talked to have been familiar with the Ring of Fire. It may depend on the type of pepper. I can douse my food with hot sauce, and not have any problems afterward. However, five star Thai food pretty consistently burns twice for me.
"Hi, Ms. Grotowski!"
They do. A shock absorber doesn't help much at 40 MPH though.
Because refills do horrible things to print quality.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!
</darth>
I would have to say... yes. I'm a freshman in college, majoring in CS. I'm earning a comparable amount with a part-time internship. This is in Boise, Idaho.
Okay, I'll attempt this one. Anyone can feel free to disagree with me, I'm hardly an expert.
First, my source: BibleGateway - New International Version.
Reading this, it states that no plants of the field had yet sprung up when humans were created. This does not mean there were NO plants, it means there were no CULTIVATED plants. Trees aren't "plants of the field".
It continues to describe the creation of Adam and Eve. This also does not contradict Genesis 1. It is a more detailed account of that creation. Saying "God created Man and Woman" in no way contradicts "God created Adam then Eve".
In this translation, it states "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." This would seem to indicate that the animals had been formed before Adam was, and they were presented to him later for naming.
Well, guess there are at least two of us on here ^_^.
No.
Yeah... but will it get me banned from WoW? ;)
He's a computer scientist... but he exported his website from WORD!!!!
*looks at source code*
*eyes burn out*
Because from God's perspective, death isn't a bad thing. God KNOWS there's an afterlife. I believe He is more concerned about our emotional and cultural wellbeing. God insisted that certain groups of people be exterminated - not because he hated them, but because he knew that the Israelite culture would have a lot of issues otherwise.
Murder is the unjustified termination of a human life. The question is, what qualifies as "unjustified"? In regard to the issue at hand, is the burden of childbirth and the adoption process sufficient justification to terminate a life? I feel it isn't, but so far the courts disagree with me.
Piffle. Spend $40 on studded tires. Get a windbreaker. Drink more water. Get in shape. There! Problems solved.
Wind power has the same problem, where the airflow downwind of a windfarm is colder, slower and more turbulent.
You just solved global warming!
Okay, I gotta know: what do you think the appropriate consequence is for ripping on an unnamed professor?
I think I would've gone into the student's room while he was in class, plastered gay porn everywhere, and written "Who's the cockmaster now? BWAHAHAHA!" on the wall in red marker.
Because there are laws against discriminating by sex, politics, race, beliefs, etc. There is not a law saying businesses cannot restrict speech.
Okay, since I don't feel like responding to each individual dense poster, I WAS BEING SARCASTIC when I said "violence never solved anything". The next person who doesn't pick up on the sarcasm is getting hit in the head with a chair!
Sorry, doesn't work that way. Remember, "violence never solved anything". Smack anyone and get suspended. It matters less and less whether you're at school. Oh, and your parents'll get sued.
Usually those arguments are not to prove anything, but to show that a certain thing is not impossible. They are trying to say that the scientific evidence doesn't disprove Noah's Ark. My proposals were not based on the Bible, they were showing how this discovery could fit within special creation. Maybe Adam DID have a microwave oven ;-).
Well, as one of the more Fundamentalist Christians on /., I'll attempt this one ^_^. I'm hardly an expert on matters theological or scientific, but the first thought would be... they're humans who have a genetic tendency toward small size. There's no reason this couldn't be a population-wide trait and still fit with the Bible. The only dispute would be time of the change, as some Christians maintain a 9,000-ish year old earth.
Another direction to approach this from would be that, while they are tool-users, they aren't actually humans. They're just another creation of God that happens to resemble us, while not being created in His image (as spiritual beings). I would lean toward the first interpretation rather than this one.
Feel free to tear either of these apart, preferably with REASONED arguments rather than foaming at the mouth.
Infinite dead monkeys, since you forgot to feed them?
Creationists are usually not opposed to studying evolution, we're more opposed to Darwinism. Evolution says species change over time, Darwinism says life originated through evolution, and all diversity is created solely through natural selection acting on random mutations. One is a scientifically valid statement. The other is religion.