I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't.:-)
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and Surveys
on
EDA: Unix vs. NT
·
· Score: 1
You say this was a "large" survey. I see no indication of how large the sample was. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see it.
Secondly, we have no idea who funded it. We know who provided the data to ZD: Giga. That tells me nothing about who funded the survey. If you can provide me with a URL at Giga's site to support your claim that M$ didn't fund it, please do so (I went to their site, and nothing easily presented itself). Absent some actual proof as to who funded it, I think you ought to omit this from your arguments in favor of it (I am certainly not going to claim that M$ funded it because I don't know).
We also don't know what sort of people they asked: Joe Average, or Joe Microsoft Employee, or who? Obviously this has a dramatic impact upon the results.
We also don't know the EXACT question that was asked. Obviously the wording of the question can make a big difference in the results. Example: "When did you stop beating your wife? Today, yesterday, or last week?" (well, what if I wasn't beating her at ANY time at all?). The wording of the question matters.
Frankly, this is irrelevant. I can give you a survey where 90% of the users reboot NT daily (my client's office), where 100% of the users curse NT's existence hourly (my company, where we suffer NT's indignities but not gladly), and where a sizable percentage reinstall NT on a regular basis due to OS failures. My point is this: surveys can be had to say whatever you want.
The bottom line, however, is that these statistics bear zero resemblance to the reality experienced by any NT user I know of who puts the OS through its paces. I have seen *one* NT box stay up for 78 days -- but it was almost never used and even then finally had to be rebooted due to memory leaks. On the other hand, I've seen NT completely *incapable* of shutting down some *user* applications under certain circumstances. I've seen problems in *user* applications that can only be resolved by a reboot (just restarting the app wouldn't itself wouldn't do it). I have a client with an office full of such stories.
I'm not suggesting the people in the survey lied. I'm suggesting that we don't know what they were asked, and we don't know who was asked, and we don't know what these people meant when they answered (BSODs only? They're rare for me too -- but not rebooting to solve OS problems with NT).
If it wasn't a troll, it was a know-nothing who doesn't have his facts straight about a) the operating system he's attacking, OR b) the operating system he's defending.
Conclusion: he's wasting bandwidth.
Re: troll who doesn't know how to read
on
EDA: Unix vs. NT
·
· Score: 1
There you have it. I am connected as a regular user, with pppd having NO suid permissions. I use PPP as a regular user all the time. You, quite frankly, don't know what you are talking about.
Remember that only NT has a c2 security rating
Only when it is not networked. Big deal. And that particular configuration is NOT what you get out of the box. Try using the C2 configuration tool that comes in the NT4 Resource Kit, and you'll see it's not as simple as "point and click." And you'll see that it's not what you got when you installed, either. And for that matter, it was NT 3.51 that was certified -- NOT NT 4 (no, the certification isn't "upgradeable"; each OS version has to be certified itself).
I would be thoroughly stunned if no Unix was ever C2 certified. I simply don't believe that.
As for the Navy using NT -- I'm beginning to suspect this is a clever troll. Do I really have to remind you of how an NT crash resulted in a ship being towed back to port?
The cool thing about NT is that you CAN reinstall every month or two without problem.
The UNcool thing about NT is that if you go longer than a month or two without reinstalling, you will NEED to reinstall.
Seriously, this is an effort (no doubt intentionally implemented by Microsoft) to hide the fact that you are reinstalling your operating system. The OS should NOT need to be reinstalled "every so often." That's just plain absurd. Worse than that: it's technologically criminal.
using windows I can change my host name with a few clicks, under Linux I have to figure out which text file to edit.
You omitted something: rename your host under Windows, and (once AGAIN) you are going to reboot. Is this sane? Is this rational? As for "ease of use": in an office of over 20 people, the number of those who know exactly how to rename the host is approximately three. So much for "ease of use." The point: "easy" is what you're used to doing. Personally, I find it very easy to edit one text file (and then NOT reboot) under Linux. So who's right about "easy"?
The fact that you "can" install NT "easily" is irrelevant if you're doing it once a month. By year's end you'll do it twelve times (or six if bimonthly) -- versus once with Linux. That's 24 or 48 hours installing NT vs. "8-12" on Linux (because you only do it once). Linux wins.
A client had a Netware server crash today (new motherboard, new problems). One particular application that is heavily used in the office lives on that server. When the server crashed, so of course did that app, on everyone's boxes in the office.
Here's the problem: it didn't quite crash, it hung. And NT was unable to kill it. Task Manager tried and failed. The only way to kill it was to reboot each box.
Yes, they are comparing server performance. I did specifically say that I don't run Apache, and I don't do file serving.
Nevertheless, it would be naive to pretend that these benchmarks will not be used by M$ to condemn Linux as slower than NT across the board. They will do it, and it will be a bald-faced lie.
I code on NT every day and work on Linux every night. The NT box has a faster processor -- PII-350 vs. PPro-200 -- but otherwise the boxes are fairly comparable -- 64MB RAM, etc. It's possible the NT box has a 100MHz bus.
Linux is vastly superior in comparison to NT in my environments. There is no comparison, on any front that I can think of:
Speed: The Linux box blows the doors off the NT machine. I don't do web serving; I don't do file serving. While I'm dubious -- extremely dubious -- of the notion that NT is a faster web server (example: keep track of the slowest sites you know versus the fastest sites you know. In my experience the slowest sites are heavily though not exclusively NT-based), it doesn't really matter to me. Besides, it's more than likely that if it is really needed, Linus and the kernel gang will fix this.
In my world -- comparing the two as workstations -- there is simply no comparison between the two when it comes to speed, and I don't care about anyone's benchmarks if they claim otherwise.
Stability: Does anything really need to be said here? My client has an NT file server that's been up for weeks -- but it is hardly used by anyone at all (it's a backup server). Meanwhile, on my NT workstation, I routinely develop "bugs" in apps that are only resolved by a reboot of the OS: restarting the app won't fix these errors; they are OS-related and disappear upon reboot (until the next time). This is a constant problem in a variety of applications. My experience of this is shared by an entire office.
And shall we talk about blue screens? And memory leaks? Meanwhile Linux keeps going and going and going, staying out of my way and letting me work. Again: no competition. Linux wins going away.
Price: Nothing more need be said.
Applications: I have all I need and then some on Linux. I certainly won't pretend that they are as pretty as their NT counterparts, but who cares? I need functionality, not the ultimate graphical experience.
Support: Again, nothing more need be said. With NT, I get the privilege of paying for a phone call and (typically) being insulted by a tech who is committed to one thing only: getting me off that phone as quickly as possible. Now that's service!
This has been my experience with NT. It has not been pleasant. It is not "good enough." It is pathetic. So I don't care how many benchmarks it "wins" (especially when those benches run counter to my own observations in the real world). Linux is a breath of fresh air. I'm sure that almost any unix would be too.
Bill Gates will never get another dime out of me so long as I have any say in the matter. His products are an atrocity.
Are you "free" to commit murder in the United States? Are you "free" to drive at whatever speed you wish? No you are not.
In the same way, you are not "free" to believe anything you wish. And while human justice is imperfect, so that you might "get away" when violating a human law, you will NOT be so lucky when you violate God's law. I say that God "tolerates" such evil because he could of course execute justice instantaneously for any and every offense. The fact that he doesn't is what I call tolerating it. Perhaps my word choice wasn't so good; I wasn't exactly satisfied with it but I couldn't think of something better at the time.
To say that you "can" do a thing -- that it is physically possible -- is irrelevant if doing so costs you your life. I can jump out of an airplane without a parachute, too -- but that doesn't mean I should. And you "can" disobey God -- but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Eventually you're going to hit the ground, so to speak. God will judge you. It's inescapable.
There are other interpretations that are equally valid. This is a deconstructionist fantasy. There is only one interpretation that's valid, and that is the one that the author intended to communicate. Anything else reduces communication to the point of impossibility. If any interpretation is valid, you could walk away from this conversation completely convinced that I made a good argument for the existence of orange frogs under the fallen log in the forest in the mountains of Colorado. Even if you're right that "many" (and not "any") interpretations are valid, then communication is destroyed. If you *really* think this, I would hate to have to carry on a conversation with you. I sincerely doubt that you live your life this way. So why do you think you can legitimately do it to the Bible?
As to differences in manuscripts: there are so few as to be inconsequential. There are occasional spelling differences; there are a few cases where certain manuscripts include/omit passages found in the vast majority of manuscripts of the Bible. But there are no cases where manuscript differences materially affect any Christian doctrine whatsoever. I have studied textual criticism and I know whereof I speak. The text of the Bible is more supported than that of any other literature of antiquity: over 27,000 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts (so far), and the astounding harmony between them is nothing less than miraculous. You may rest assured that the text of the Bible is essentially certain.
No loving God could be petty enough to condemn a soul who wanted to worship, but happened to choose a bad translation of the bible to base their beliefs on.
Are you going to define what God can or can't do? Isn't that making a "god" in your own image?
More importantly, you have a misplaced assumption: that there are people who are honestly seeking God. There aren't. Everyone hates him. Nobody seeks God. God would accept them if they really did seek him, but they don't do so. The only reason anyone is saved at all is because God draws people to himself. So this is a moot point.
God most definitely allows people to not believe in him.
No, God tolerates it when they do so. His toleration will someday end.
The point is this: God does not grant you or anyone the "right" to think or believe whatever you want. To assume that you can do so and escape punishment for it is just wrong -- but that's what people do all the time. They will be sorry if they don't repent of it.
You'll have to tune into the email conversation. I suspect that this issue will come up there, and I don't have the time or energy right now to do it twice.
This is a fundamental error committed by many people (including, it seems, you): that they have the right to judge whether the Bible is God's Word, and whether it's true.
You don't have such a right. You are obligated to submit to it.
Who are you to question God's justice -- particularly when you are subject to it yourself? Don't you think it's rather arrogant of you to claim for yourself the right to judge God's justice? Don't you think that if there's a problem with your grasp of God's perfect justice the problem is with YOU rather than God?
Pretty much. Well, after you cut out the incest, rape, murder, and internal contradictions.
There are no internal contradictions.
DfL, are you wearing cotton/poly anything right now? Are you deep-conditioning those long, luxuriant earlocks? Because if you're shaving the sides of your head, or wearing mixed-fiber fabrics, you're an abomination unto the lord and will burn in the yacketa yacketa. See Leviticus.
The ceremonial law was fulfilled by Christ. See the epistle to the Hebrews. As a consequence, I am not required to abide by the same ceremonial restrictions that Israel did prior to Christ's coming. This is not to say that the whole of Old Testament law is done away with; rather, only the ceremonial aspects of it are. The rest of it is still binding. The holiness laws that you cite are (unfortunately for your calumny) part of those laws that are no longer binding. Again, see Hebrews.
You are NOT free to believe whatever you want. I don't know where you got that absurd idea, but it's not in the Bible. You are responsible to believe the truth. The truth is found in the Bible. To willfully believe lies is immoral.
Governments may institute so-called "freedom of religion" but to conclude that God does the same is not only foolish -- it is hazardous to your health.
-It is necessary to have a soul to really live. Bzzt! Didn't even make it to your most important assumption...unless you are guilty only of poor expression. If you don't have a soul, you're not alive at all. You're dead. Literally.
-To have a soul, one needs to have been conceived naturally. Bzzt!! Baseless assumption. Adam had a soul. So did Eve. So do test tube babies (if they didn't, they'd be dead).
Sorry, but your assumptions failed, so your conclusions are baseless. Please play the game again when you have something more consistent to offer.
In the meantime, think about this: what makes you think you have the right to decide what sort of God you're going to believe in?
There is no ultimate divine scale against which you measure your value system.
Really?
What is the Bible, then? A bag of neat ideas?
"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). God seems to disagree with you. So who's right -- you or God?
The teachings of Jesus as shown in the bible are heavy on metaphor, and yet you try to claim that everything in the Bible has to be literal truth?
I've never suggested that we woodenly treat only the words of the Bible without regard for how they are used. The Bible has poetry. It's obvious that it uses figurative language. I argue for interpreting the Bible according to the intent of the author. That means we take into account the author's use of figurative language, and it requires a good understanding of life and culture 3000 years ago.
As this applies to the present topic of creation: as I have said repeatedly, there is NOTHING in the Bible to suggest that the days of Genesis 1 are anything other than literal 24-hour consecutive days. There is NOTHING in the Bible or in the text of Genesis 1 itself to suggest that ANY other interpretation than this is legitimate. Six literal days. It's done, all of it.
Why do you think that you have the right to judge the Bible by what scientists say?
if you believe that God never tests people, or allows people to believe things that aren't true, I really have to wonder which bible you've been reading.
God surely tolerates error on our part -- but saying that he does that is quite different from asserting that he would induce error by a creation account that was flatly wrong (as you suggest).
This would not even be an issue except for a fundamental epistemological error. The problem here is that you presume to judge the Bible by science. This is an illegitimate endeavor. The Bible is not subject to verification (or attack) by scientists. On the contrary, the Bible stands as judge over all human endeavor including science. When the two disagree, it is *science* that is wrong -- not the Bible.
Consequently, there are a number of people running about desperately seeking to "salvage" the Bible in the face of the "onslaught" of science. So they conjure up syncretistic notions like "theistic evolution" to try and "save" the Bible. It's not the Bible that needs saving. It's scientists who need salvation.
I have neither patience nor time for misguided efforts at "harmonizing" things which are at utter variance when it means jettisoning the clear teaching of God's Word for the sake of "compatibility" with the latest "findings" of a bunch of God-hating scientists. The standard approach has been this: "Hmmm....those scientists say we evolved. Now how do I interpret the Bible to fit that?" The CORRECT approach is this: "Hmmm...those scientists say we evolved. I guess they're wrong." But this is never done. It is an error, and it's not one I plan to repeat. If scientists and the Bible disagree, then the scientists are wrong. Period. God doesn't lie, and he's never wrong.
I can hardly force you to discuss this, but how do you know nothing will come of it?
It is a particular trait of our age -- and I do not consider it a virtue -- that we are perfectly willing to "agree to disagree", as though the differences in opinion don't matter. Surely it is true that on rare occasion no good will come of continued debate, but the truth is important. As I said, we don't have the right to believe just anything. When people disagree about what the Bible says, one or both of them is wrong, and therefore one or both of them is probably sinning. This is serious business. It does no good to run when the going gets heated. It may be that there are intellectual battles for which we are not well-equipped (I know that's true of me), and there is no shame in that at all, but we need to stand for the truth.
And I appreciate the fact that you haven't started swearing at me, as so many seem to enjoy doing (as though that made their arguments any sounder).
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world his divine attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:18-22.
You know. You lie to me and to yourself if you deny it.
No, we don't have "approved" translations. Yes, no translation is perfect. Does that matter? Isn't it enough that we have the original text preserved, and can refer to it to correct the inevitable errors in a translation?
If the pope adheres to various heresies taught by his church, then yes he will go to hell. Mariolatry and the mass are two fine examples.
But there's a difference between saying that someone is wrong and saying that they will go to hell. I don't presume to judge the pope. I don't know him.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't. :-)
Secondly, we have no idea who funded it. We know who provided the data to ZD: Giga. That tells me nothing about who funded the survey. If you can provide me with a URL at Giga's site to support your claim that M$ didn't fund it, please do so (I went to their site, and nothing easily presented itself). Absent some actual proof as to who funded it, I think you ought to omit this from your arguments in favor of it (I am certainly not going to claim that M$ funded it because I don't know).
We also don't know what sort of people they asked: Joe Average, or Joe Microsoft Employee, or who? Obviously this has a dramatic impact upon the results.
We also don't know the EXACT question that was asked. Obviously the wording of the question can make a big difference in the results. Example: "When did you stop beating your wife? Today, yesterday, or last week?" (well, what if I wasn't beating her at ANY time at all?). The wording of the question matters.
Frankly, this is irrelevant. I can give you a survey where 90% of the users reboot NT daily (my client's office), where 100% of the users curse NT's existence hourly (my company, where we suffer NT's indignities but not gladly), and where a sizable percentage reinstall NT on a regular basis due to OS failures. My point is this: surveys can be had to say whatever you want.
The bottom line, however, is that these statistics bear zero resemblance to the reality experienced by any NT user I know of who puts the OS through its paces. I have seen *one* NT box stay up for 78 days -- but it was almost never used and even then finally had to be rebooted due to memory leaks. On the other hand, I've seen NT completely *incapable* of shutting down some *user* applications under certain circumstances. I've seen problems in *user* applications that can only be resolved by a reboot (just restarting the app wouldn't itself wouldn't do it). I have a client with an office full of such stories.
I'm not suggesting the people in the survey lied. I'm suggesting that we don't know what they were asked, and we don't know who was asked, and we don't know what these people meant when they answered (BSODs only? They're rare for me too -- but not rebooting to solve OS problems with NT).
Conclusion: he's wasting bandwidth.
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 120020 Apr 9 22:33 /usr/sbin/pppd*
There you have it. I am connected as a regular user, with pppd having NO suid permissions. I use PPP as a regular user all the time. You, quite frankly, don't know what you are talking about.
Remember that only NT has a c2 security rating
Only when it is not networked. Big deal. And that particular configuration is NOT what you get out of the box. Try using the C2 configuration tool that comes in the NT4 Resource Kit, and you'll see it's not as simple as "point and click." And you'll see that it's not what you got when you installed, either. And for that matter, it was NT 3.51 that was certified -- NOT NT 4 (no, the certification isn't "upgradeable"; each OS version has to be certified itself).
I would be thoroughly stunned if no Unix was ever C2 certified. I simply don't believe that.
As for the Navy using NT -- I'm beginning to suspect this is a clever troll. Do I really have to remind you of how an NT crash resulted in a ship being towed back to port?
The UNcool thing about NT is that if you go longer than a month or two without reinstalling, you will NEED to reinstall.
Seriously, this is an effort (no doubt intentionally implemented by Microsoft) to hide the fact that you are reinstalling your operating system. The OS should NOT need to be reinstalled "every so often." That's just plain absurd. Worse than that: it's technologically criminal.
using windows I can change my host name with a few clicks, under Linux I have to figure out which text file to edit.
You omitted something: rename your host under Windows, and (once AGAIN) you are going to reboot. Is this sane? Is this rational? As for "ease of use": in an office of over 20 people, the number of those who know exactly how to rename the host is approximately three. So much for "ease of use." The point: "easy" is what you're used to doing. Personally, I find it very easy to edit one text file (and then NOT reboot) under Linux. So who's right about "easy"?
The fact that you "can" install NT "easily" is irrelevant if you're doing it once a month. By year's end you'll do it twelve times (or six if bimonthly) -- versus once with Linux. That's 24 or 48 hours installing NT vs. "8-12" on Linux (because you only do it once). Linux wins.
A client had a Netware server crash today (new motherboard, new problems). One particular application that is heavily used in the office lives on that server. When the server crashed, so of course did that app, on everyone's boxes in the office.
Here's the problem: it didn't quite crash, it hung. And NT was unable to kill it. Task Manager tried and failed. The only way to kill it was to reboot each box.
Nevertheless, it would be naive to pretend that these benchmarks will not be used by M$ to condemn Linux as slower than NT across the board. They will do it, and it will be a bald-faced lie.
I code on NT every day and work on Linux every night. The NT box has a faster processor -- PII-350 vs. PPro-200 -- but otherwise the boxes are fairly comparable -- 64MB RAM, etc. It's possible the NT box has a 100MHz bus.
Linux is vastly superior in comparison to NT in my environments. There is no comparison, on any front that I can think of:
In my world -- comparing the two as workstations -- there is simply no comparison between the two when it comes to speed, and I don't care about anyone's benchmarks if they claim otherwise.
And shall we talk about blue screens? And memory leaks? Meanwhile Linux keeps going and going and going, staying out of my way and letting me work. Again: no competition. Linux wins going away.
This has been my experience with NT. It has not been pleasant. It is not "good enough." It is pathetic. So I don't care how many benchmarks it "wins" (especially when those benches run counter to my own observations in the real world). Linux is a breath of fresh air. I'm sure that almost any unix would be too.
Bill Gates will never get another dime out of me so long as I have any say in the matter. His products are an atrocity.
In the same way, you are not "free" to believe anything you wish. And while human justice is imperfect, so that you might "get away" when violating a human law, you will NOT be so lucky when you violate God's law. I say that God "tolerates" such evil because he could of course execute justice instantaneously for any and every offense. The fact that he doesn't is what I call tolerating it. Perhaps my word choice wasn't so good; I wasn't exactly satisfied with it but I couldn't think of something better at the time.
To say that you "can" do a thing -- that it is physically possible -- is irrelevant if doing so costs you your life. I can jump out of an airplane without a parachute, too -- but that doesn't mean I should. And you "can" disobey God -- but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Eventually you're going to hit the ground, so to speak. God will judge you. It's inescapable.
There are other interpretations that are equally valid. This is a deconstructionist fantasy. There is only one interpretation that's valid, and that is the one that the author intended to communicate. Anything else reduces communication to the point of impossibility. If any interpretation is valid, you could walk away from this conversation completely convinced that I made a good argument for the existence of orange frogs under the fallen log in the forest in the mountains of Colorado. Even if you're right that "many" (and not "any") interpretations are valid, then communication is destroyed. If you *really* think this, I would hate to have to carry on a conversation with you. I sincerely doubt that you live your life this way. So why do you think you can legitimately do it to the Bible?
As to differences in manuscripts: there are so few as to be inconsequential. There are occasional spelling differences; there are a few cases where certain manuscripts include/omit passages found in the vast majority of manuscripts of the Bible. But there are no cases where manuscript differences materially affect any Christian doctrine whatsoever. I have studied textual criticism and I know whereof I speak. The text of the Bible is more supported than that of any other literature of antiquity: over 27,000 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts (so far), and the astounding harmony between them is nothing less than miraculous. You may rest assured that the text of the Bible is essentially certain.
No loving God could be petty enough to condemn a soul who wanted to worship, but happened to choose a bad translation of the bible to base their beliefs on.
Are you going to define what God can or can't do? Isn't that making a "god" in your own image?
More importantly, you have a misplaced assumption: that there are people who are honestly seeking God. There aren't. Everyone hates him. Nobody seeks God. God would accept them if they really did seek him, but they don't do so. The only reason anyone is saved at all is because God draws people to himself. So this is a moot point.
No, God tolerates it when they do so. His toleration will someday end.
The point is this: God does not grant you or anyone the "right" to think or believe whatever you want. To assume that you can do so and escape punishment for it is just wrong -- but that's what people do all the time. They will be sorry if they don't repent of it.
You don't have such a right. You are obligated to submit to it.
Who are you to question God's justice -- particularly when you are subject to it yourself? Don't you think it's rather arrogant of you to claim for yourself the right to judge God's justice? Don't you think that if there's a problem with your grasp of God's perfect justice the problem is with YOU rather than God?
There are no internal contradictions.
DfL, are you wearing cotton/poly anything right now? Are you deep-conditioning those long, luxuriant earlocks? Because if you're shaving the sides of your head, or wearing mixed-fiber fabrics, you're an abomination unto the lord and will burn in the yacketa yacketa. See Leviticus.
The ceremonial law was fulfilled by Christ. See the epistle to the Hebrews. As a consequence, I am not required to abide by the same ceremonial restrictions that Israel did prior to Christ's coming. This is not to say that the whole of Old Testament law is done away with; rather, only the ceremonial aspects of it are. The rest of it is still binding. The holiness laws that you cite are (unfortunately for your calumny) part of those laws that are no longer binding. Again, see Hebrews.
Governments may institute so-called "freedom of religion" but to conclude that God does the same is not only foolish -- it is hazardous to your health.
Who's right -- you who deny a standard, or God who says there is one (Isaiah 8:20)?
-God exists Okay so far
-It is necessary to have a soul to really live. Bzzt! Didn't even make it to your most important assumption...unless you are guilty only of poor expression. If you don't have a soul, you're not alive at all. You're dead. Literally.
-To have a soul, one needs to have been conceived naturally. Bzzt!! Baseless assumption. Adam had a soul. So did Eve. So do test tube babies (if they didn't, they'd be dead).
Sorry, but your assumptions failed, so your conclusions are baseless. Please play the game again when you have something more consistent to offer.
In the meantime, think about this: what makes you think you have the right to decide what sort of God you're going to believe in?
Really?
What is the Bible, then? A bag of neat ideas?
"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). God seems to disagree with you. So who's right -- you or God?
I've never suggested that we woodenly treat only the words of the Bible without regard for how they are used. The Bible has poetry. It's obvious that it uses figurative language. I argue for interpreting the Bible according to the intent of the author. That means we take into account the author's use of figurative language, and it requires a good understanding of life and culture 3000 years ago.
As this applies to the present topic of creation: as I have said repeatedly, there is NOTHING in the Bible to suggest that the days of Genesis 1 are anything other than literal 24-hour consecutive days. There is NOTHING in the Bible or in the text of Genesis 1 itself to suggest that ANY other interpretation than this is legitimate. Six literal days. It's done, all of it.
Why do you think that you have the right to judge the Bible by what scientists say?
God surely tolerates error on our part -- but saying that he does that is quite different from asserting that he would induce error by a creation account that was flatly wrong (as you suggest).
This would not even be an issue except for a fundamental epistemological error. The problem here is that you presume to judge the Bible by science. This is an illegitimate endeavor. The Bible is not subject to verification (or attack) by scientists. On the contrary, the Bible stands as judge over all human endeavor including science. When the two disagree, it is *science* that is wrong -- not the Bible.
Consequently, there are a number of people running about desperately seeking to "salvage" the Bible in the face of the "onslaught" of science. So they conjure up syncretistic notions like "theistic evolution" to try and "save" the Bible. It's not the Bible that needs saving. It's scientists who need salvation.
I have neither patience nor time for misguided efforts at "harmonizing" things which are at utter variance when it means jettisoning the clear teaching of God's Word for the sake of "compatibility" with the latest "findings" of a bunch of God-hating scientists. The standard approach has been this: "Hmmm....those scientists say we evolved. Now how do I interpret the Bible to fit that?" The CORRECT approach is this: "Hmmm...those scientists say we evolved. I guess they're wrong." But this is never done. It is an error, and it's not one I plan to repeat. If scientists and the Bible disagree, then the scientists are wrong. Period. God doesn't lie, and he's never wrong.
It is a particular trait of our age -- and I do not consider it a virtue -- that we are perfectly willing to "agree to disagree", as though the differences in opinion don't matter. Surely it is true that on rare occasion no good will come of continued debate, but the truth is important. As I said, we don't have the right to believe just anything. When people disagree about what the Bible says, one or both of them is wrong, and therefore one or both of them is probably sinning. This is serious business. It does no good to run when the going gets heated. It may be that there are intellectual battles for which we are not well-equipped (I know that's true of me), and there is no shame in that at all, but we need to stand for the truth.
And I appreciate the fact that you haven't started swearing at me, as so many seem to enjoy doing (as though that made their arguments any sounder).
You know. You lie to me and to yourself if you deny it.
But there's a difference between saying that someone is wrong and saying that they will go to hell. I don't presume to judge the pope. I don't know him.