RTFA... "The downloaded books can be searched by keyword and read out loud by the Adobe software, as well as highlighted and bookmarked."
Can't help you on the burning part;)
Hi everybody,
a real storm of requests was hitting the trifinite.org server last night. In total, the transfer for August already exceeds the monthly quota. (And this is just the beginning of the month)... scary
If you want to help covering the cost from that request-storm, you should consider a donation. Thanks a lot.
This is going to be huge. Not only are you going to be near a freind, you will be near 3 shops that have ads with google. It may get annoying, but they have to pay for this somehow.
Typically this type of comment comes from linux users. I am sorry, but as long as software is piratable (I am not condoning, just stating the facts), you are not going to get people off Windows. They can simply find too many apps for free.
I will concede that evolution doesn't assume the world is bettering itself. I see your point. My point however, that ID does make predictions is still valid.
All dating methods are significantly impacted by the data found in the lake adjacent to Mount St. Helens. The fact is, there are extra circumstances that we know nothing of. Evolution is a guess. So is ID. Both are valid.
I will absolutely teach ID/Creationism to my daughter as a theory along with Evolution. I would expect any teacher in the classroom to present as such. The problem is, evolution is taught as FACT, when it is not. It is our "best guess" (and I do not think it to be the best). I would have no problem with a teacher stating it is our best guess. But to teach it as fact is wrong.
The Sunday School teacher is not there to teach creationism (the scientific theory). Instead, they should be teaching the scriptures. There is a difference.
I definitely did not define this point well. Let me clarify without too much more detail, because it is not the main point.
The world is falling apart. We see in nature a digression. The world is not bettering itself as evolutionary theories would assume it has been doing for billions of years.
Some see the digression as a result of modern technology, others see it as God's curse on man for sin. Others may think it is because we were some alien's play toy and we have been set on his shelf like the penguin in Toy Story.
The statement was that ID does not make predictions. I am saying that ID does make predictions. One such prediction is that the world will be destroyed (either by some force or the eventual degeneration of a planet that is systematicallly falling apart). The world could be getting worse as a result of poor human usage of the resources given to us (global warming etc.). This fits into the evolutionary mindset. The other solutions fit into a ID mindset.
If your theory was true, then no one would change what they believe. I have, since beginning my own study of scripture, found that I have had to change many things that I believe. I make it a point to approach the scriptures with an open mind. I do not decide what is literal/figurative on my own. There are basic principles to interpreting passages. (Hermanuetics if you are interested).
Again I state, there are many who do not do this. Most christians are lazy enough to simply believe whatever their pastor/priest/whatever says to them. It is a shame, but my point in the thread is still the same. There are those who seriously think through what they bible says and find themselves believing in God. If that does not make sense to you, then OK, but it is true.
It is obvious where the moderators stand on the topic. There are plenty of posts in this thread underscoring the fact that ID is a scientific theory. In all fairness, why aren't these being shown as insightful? Read on, vorpal, and find that your post simply does not hold water.
I am, because he was saying creationists believe that every word is literal truth... There are so many other factors in the process. People, in the Old testament would be stoned for their mixed fabrics. Proper theological study shows a reason why this was so, and shows that God has since fulfilled all the purposes of the Law in Jesus.
Let me be clear... I believe every word of the bible. I do not believe every word is to be taken literally. But every word is to be interpreted, through a set of interpretive rules, and "Every word is profitable..."
ID does play the game. It has theories, models, tests, etc. None are conclusive as you so aptly said, but there is an entire scientific arena devoted to the catastrophy models. Look at what we have learned from Mount St. Helens. Data from the adjacent lake showed major flaws in current carbon dating when a catastrophy occurs.
It does make predictions as well. It says that the world is in a state of digression because it was started. The fact that the world is getting worse is ( physically, not morally) is apparent.
My point is that ID should not be written off as a theological stance, it is a scientific theory, based on scientific data.
Let it be said that not only the religious folks are narrow minded. This post seems like the same thing you would hear from a ultra-fundamentalist christian.
I believe that the Bible is to be interpreted in it's context. I do not believe every word to be literal truth (read the Song of Solomon and picture the literal woman described there), but instead to be interpreted through a set of literary principles taking into account the Genra, time, historical and cultural contexts.
That being said, I am a creationist. Simply because after a thorough study of the first section of Genesis, I can see that this section is to be interpreted as literal. To your contradiction, I say this: The contradiction is between the first two chapters not one. The second chapter recounts the section specifically dealing with Humans. This is because the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) will deal with humans and their struggle with spirituality.
I am not a scientist, though I have studied enough of the topic to see that neither theory can be proven. It is unfair to say that all who believe in creationism are irrational. I have weighed the ideas, tried to do a serious study (on my own - not just read other people's stuff) and found myself leaning toward an intellegent recent design of this planet. Science does NOT disprove this position, so therefore I should be free to interpret the passage either way.
Many people of faith buy into whatever they hear and have caused many to stereotype all people of faith into irrational bigots. This is simple not true. Some of us think and study and learn and come to conclusions that point to a god. Why is this so difficult for people to accept?
People who actually study science, can come to the ID conclusion and many have. You are lumping Creationism (ID passed through the Bible to fill in the gaps) into this discussion. ID is the topic at hand.
Do some real study prior to mouthing off like this and you may find yourself humbled. There are catastrophy models that easily explain many of the evolutionary theories while making the earth relatively young. People are simple too afraid to entertain the thought that anything semi-religious sounding could still be true.
It is a shame that people are so concerned about religious people. There is plenty of facts that can be taken to 'prove' either side of the argument. Once you introduct the catastrophy theories, all age, fosil, dating methods are easily explaned.
This is the fundamental problem with the scientific method. You start with a theory and try to prove it. You can always find a way to prove you point if you look hard enough.
Religious people have NOT handled themselves properly in this and many other debates, but the fact remains that no origin theory is without error. Teaching ID is just as good a theory as teaching evolution. I fully think that both should be taught.
Just because some people of faith look to the bible for the "Missing pieces" of the ID theory, doesn't mean it is a worthless theory. It has just as much merit as evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA... "The downloaded books can be searched by keyword and read out loud by the Adobe software, as well as highlighted and bookmarked." Can't help you on the burning part ;)
From there home page:
Hi everybody, a real storm of requests was hitting the trifinite.org server last night. In total, the transfer for August already exceeds the monthly quota. (And this is just the beginning of the month)... scary
If you want to help covering the cost from that request-storm, you should consider a donation. Thanks a lot.
Cheers.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Check this out... I'll bet 2,000 as a final bidding price...
m =5791636565
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ite
Anyone else notice the battery life indicator. I think longhorn is a little confussed.
RED GREEN!!! You Rock.
This is great (and it has sound)!!!
See Money Maker post above... Adsense will send ads to you when you approach a store. It is brilliant.
This is going to be huge. Not only are you going to be near a freind, you will be near 3 shops that have ads with google. It may get annoying, but they have to pay for this somehow.
Sorry... wrong thread... Flame me if you like
The Mark of the Beast... sn: 666
I concur... Mod away on this. I love it.
Typically this type of comment comes from linux users. I am sorry, but as long as software is piratable (I am not condoning, just stating the facts), you are not going to get people off Windows. They can simply find too many apps for free.
I will concede that evolution doesn't assume the world is bettering itself. I see your point. My point however, that ID does make predictions is still valid.
-Cheers
All dating methods are significantly impacted by the data found in the lake adjacent to Mount St. Helens. The fact is, there are extra circumstances that we know nothing of. Evolution is a guess. So is ID. Both are valid.
I will absolutely teach ID/Creationism to my daughter as a theory along with Evolution. I would expect any teacher in the classroom to present as such. The problem is, evolution is taught as FACT, when it is not. It is our "best guess" (and I do not think it to be the best). I would have no problem with a teacher stating it is our best guess. But to teach it as fact is wrong.
The Sunday School teacher is not there to teach creationism (the scientific theory). Instead, they should be teaching the scriptures. There is a difference.
I definitely did not define this point well. Let me clarify without too much more detail, because it is not the main point.
The world is falling apart. We see in nature a digression. The world is not bettering itself as evolutionary theories would assume it has been doing for billions of years.
Some see the digression as a result of modern technology, others see it as God's curse on man for sin. Others may think it is because we were some alien's play toy and we have been set on his shelf like the penguin in Toy Story.
The statement was that ID does not make predictions. I am saying that ID does make predictions. One such prediction is that the world will be destroyed (either by some force or the eventual degeneration of a planet that is systematicallly falling apart). The world could be getting worse as a result of poor human usage of the resources given to us (global warming etc.). This fits into the evolutionary mindset. The other solutions fit into a ID mindset.
If your theory was true, then no one would change what they believe. I have, since beginning my own study of scripture, found that I have had to change many things that I believe. I make it a point to approach the scriptures with an open mind. I do not decide what is literal/figurative on my own. There are basic principles to interpreting passages. (Hermanuetics if you are interested).
Again I state, there are many who do not do this. Most christians are lazy enough to simply believe whatever their pastor/priest/whatever says to them. It is a shame, but my point in the thread is still the same. There are those who seriously think through what they bible says and find themselves believing in God. If that does not make sense to you, then OK, but it is true.
It is obvious where the moderators stand on the topic. There are plenty of posts in this thread underscoring the fact that ID is a scientific theory. In all fairness, why aren't these being shown as insightful? Read on, vorpal, and find that your post simply does not hold water.
I am, because he was saying creationists believe that every word is literal truth... There are so many other factors in the process. People, in the Old testament would be stoned for their mixed fabrics. Proper theological study shows a reason why this was so, and shows that God has since fulfilled all the purposes of the Law in Jesus.
Let me be clear... I believe every word of the bible. I do not believe every word is to be taken literally. But every word is to be interpreted, through a set of interpretive rules, and "Every word is profitable..."
Does this mean I am lying or really really dumb?
ID does play the game. It has theories, models, tests, etc. None are conclusive as you so aptly said, but there is an entire scientific arena devoted to the catastrophy models. Look at what we have learned from Mount St. Helens. Data from the adjacent lake showed major flaws in current carbon dating when a catastrophy occurs.
It does make predictions as well. It says that the world is in a state of digression because it was started. The fact that the world is getting worse is ( physically, not morally) is apparent.
My point is that ID should not be written off as a theological stance, it is a scientific theory, based on scientific data.
Let it be said that not only the religious folks are narrow minded. This post seems like the same thing you would hear from a ultra-fundamentalist christian.
I believe that the Bible is to be interpreted in it's context. I do not believe every word to be literal truth (read the Song of Solomon and picture the literal woman described there), but instead to be interpreted through a set of literary principles taking into account the Genra, time, historical and cultural contexts.
That being said, I am a creationist. Simply because after a thorough study of the first section of Genesis, I can see that this section is to be interpreted as literal. To your contradiction, I say this: The contradiction is between the first two chapters not one. The second chapter recounts the section specifically dealing with Humans. This is because the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) will deal with humans and their struggle with spirituality.
I am not a scientist, though I have studied enough of the topic to see that neither theory can be proven. It is unfair to say that all who believe in creationism are irrational. I have weighed the ideas, tried to do a serious study (on my own - not just read other people's stuff) and found myself leaning toward an intellegent recent design of this planet. Science does NOT disprove this position, so therefore I should be free to interpret the passage either way.
Many people of faith buy into whatever they hear and have caused many to stereotype all people of faith into irrational bigots. This is simple not true. Some of us think and study and learn and come to conclusions that point to a god. Why is this so difficult for people to accept?
What a shame...
People who actually study science, can come to the ID conclusion and many have. You are lumping Creationism (ID passed through the Bible to fill in the gaps) into this discussion. ID is the topic at hand.
Do some real study prior to mouthing off like this and you may find yourself humbled. There are catastrophy models that easily explain many of the evolutionary theories while making the earth relatively young. People are simple too afraid to entertain the thought that anything semi-religious sounding could still be true.
It is a shame that people are so concerned about religious people. There is plenty of facts that can be taken to 'prove' either side of the argument. Once you introduct the catastrophy theories, all age, fosil, dating methods are easily explaned.
This is the fundamental problem with the scientific method. You start with a theory and try to prove it. You can always find a way to prove you point if you look hard enough.
Religious people have NOT handled themselves properly in this and many other debates, but the fact remains that no origin theory is without error. Teaching ID is just as good a theory as teaching evolution. I fully think that both should be taught.
Just because some people of faith look to the bible for the "Missing pieces" of the ID theory, doesn't mean it is a worthless theory. It has just as much merit as evolution.