That's pretty interesting...I especially liked the list of "Enemies from Within". Thanks for posting this. I tell you what: I will be on the lookout for those commies in the Consumer's Union and Civil Rights Congress!
-- Some things never change...
Re:Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME proble
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is an outrage! I say you demand your money back.
Firefox has problems. So does IE. So does Opera.
As a professional web developer, I care very much about browsers. I also deal with demanding users such as yourself who nitpick and who are on some kind of power trip or something. Think about it: is someone who is coding an application for you on their free time going to spend even ten minutes reading a badly reported problem? I sure wouldn't, not when there are ten other things I can fix that are just as important to someone else. You do the most good you can do in the shortest amount of time and move on.
You may be frustrated, but you won't get anywhere assuming you submit bug reports with this same tone. I'd venture that many Mozilla developers are professional developers who do Mozdev on their own time, and probably get enough of that crap at work. It's a web browser, not a car or a space shuttle or a nuclear power plant. Deal with it, fix it, or move on to something else. Personally, I have gripes with Firefox, but I deal with them. If something better came out, I don't know about you, but I'd be all over it. But the fact that you typed this in the first place shows that you haven't found anything better. Stop trying to rake people over the coals.
wonky, that's one of the best descriptions for sound I've heard. My wonk may not be the same as your wonk, but the funny part is I know exactly what you are talking about.
or just do what I did...ring up a $150,000 order, take it all the way to the payment screen, and leave it. Once you put in bogus data, they'll have to call "you" back, unless they want to run the risk of losing an enormous order. That, with the resulting 20 page requests, ought to tie them up real good. That is, if they monitor carts.
Ah, I see you subscribe to the Hoover posterior friction coefficient. However, I would like to propose that you check out Dr Suresh Burabi's extensive catalogue of rear-end studies. Your calculations would read much differently.
Yep. Here on Kneejerk Reaction Central, er, sorry/., there have been a lot of good and funny comments and so forth on the topic. But in reality, this is not gonna go anywhere. This whole flap came up a while ago cause some school superintendent or someone like that thought it would be a good idea to teach kids things using a dialect of english called ebonics. Not that I care enought to research who and where and what is happening with ebonics now, but point is that it hasn't caught on. To my knowledge, no self respecting educator has embraced ebonics as a tool for the classroom. This too will die in a while after the good professor dude makes some money and ruins his credibility. Then, who knows, maybe he will try to pwn u-r windoze box, he at least seems to understand the nomenclature of the trade. a1l u-r warez r minez!!11!!1
Dumb kids will be dumb, smart kids will be smart, and rivers will always run and all kinds of crap like that.
Just to add to what was said about fake books and the fact that skill is still required to play the music in them. I play jazz (guitar) semi-professionally, and here is the deal:
Jazz is largely about improvisation. Knowing the chords to a song is important, but nobody just plays the chords. You need creativity to do improvise in a new and different way over those chords.
Again, just calling them dumb chords is quite the oversimplification. There are 12 notes, and there are many many different chords. For starters, Major, Minor, M7, m7, dom7, m7-5, dim, aug, m6, M6, m9, M9, 13, sus, 6/9, need I go on? Additionally, there are dozens of voicings for each of these chords. Do you want me to start talking about chord substition? You can take the V chord (usually a dom 7) and substitute a dom 7 at the tritone.
Music is incredibly complex. In fact, I'd argue that fake books, while allowing a musician to play a song that perhaps he has never even heard, in some ways add more complexity than if you were to just read the music. Reading music asks you to play specific notes. Fake books let you interpret the music as you see fit, on the fly, while playing for people who want to be entertained. So I guess I don't need to state that that was a bad example.
I am someone who believes in the creation account in Genesis. Now, before you all stop reading, hear me out here, cause this spiel sets the stage for what's next. The bible in not a scientific textbook. Yet it harmonizes well with science. What does not harmonize with science is the majority of Organized Religion's interpretations. I mean, they persecuted Galileo for speaking truth just because he disproved their stupidity. Now...
I would not want my children to be taught this ID stuff in school for several reasons. First, I would find this Fundamentalist teaching objectionable just as a Buddhist or Muslim might, as I disagree with these ID viewpoints. Again, I belive in the bible but some of the things these people teach are neither scientific nor scriptural. Second, I send my children to school so that they can learn things, like, you guessed it, science. Though I do believe that Darwinian theory will not stand the test of time, right now there is benefit to be gained from learning it. I want my children to recive this benefit. Plus, you cannot really claim that you do not believe a theory such as evolution if you don't understand it. I don't want my children to blindly accept anything. Third, once religion becomes involved in politics you have to question its validity. These religious people who are pushing their ID agenda are just as crooked as any other politician. Why would I want their form of religious doctrine to be taught to my children?
Last of all, just how flippin lazy are these hicks, anyway? I mean, people already use school as an excuse to not have to educate their children. What, are these same people now too lazy to teach their children their all-important religious beliefs?! Come on, now. Something stinks about the whole thing. Maybe people are scared their children might start to question their beliefs, which the parents themselves cannot adequately defend? Hmmm...I smell fear, and as we all know, that leads to the dark side!
You talking about UR Quan masters? Heck yeah! It has to be one of the greatest games ever! You can get all kinds of maps at classicgaming.com (I'd find the exact URI for you except I am at work and I'd get yelled at). It has maps of hyperspace, alien home worlds, even maps of planets with good supplies of minerals. It's more fun without the cheats, but it's still cool to have if you need it.
I can appreciate your point, but I still don't like 'em. Just my opinion. Learning from them is cool. Using them is oh-so-lame.
I design web applications for a living, and I have never seen a great template. I have not seen everything under the sun, of course. I can only speak from my own experience.
Hey moderators! Don't forget to mark this as flame bait too!
Fair enough. I guess learning from templates is OK.
However, while *you* may do this, I have seen "professional" web developers present templates to comittees and the take the credit. Meanwhile, the design is full of crap stock photos code bloat. Of course, these same people get upset when you ask why they have seven layers of nested tables to lay out a page and spacer gifs and stuff like that. Yeah, that stuff was a cool hack back when html did not support style sheets, but now it's just plain bad practice. I have never seen templates that were constructed of what could be called great code. I have not seen everything, so I cannot say that this is the case everywhere, but I'd bet that's pretty close to the truth. Someone prove me wrong here...
Anyhow, the other half of the reason I replied was to commend you on your Orz sig. Awesome! I thought I was the only one who still dug that game...
Whomever just modded me down as flamebait -- you probably did that because on your last consulting job where you got PAID to design a website, you went to this site and grabbed a nifty template. It worked out too, since executives don't care about bad code and they just LOVE stock photos, especially ones of second rate models in corporate attire giving a laptop a steely stare. Plus the website probably plays sounds and all kinds of "kewl" stuff. I have seen it too many times in my professional experience.
Website templates are bad. I do not use generalities like this too often, but in this case it is merited. If you cannot design a website, or know enough to hire someone who can, then "resources" like this one will not cover your ineptitude. If you are a good programmer but cannot design well, ask for help. Learn how. Don't take a template and use it. By the time you make it fit your needs, you could have learned something. Better yet, let form follow function. Google should prove to everyone that if it works fast and well, it doesn't gotta be pretty.
I will agree. Web site templates SUCK big time. I mean, if you cannot design a web site, then what are you doing trying to produce one? Also, isn't designing them the fun part? Worst of all, these idiotic templates are often full of bloated code and bad stock photos that lend nothing to the product except to make it look "professional". Good riddance. Replace it with a website on how to design usable web sites. And tutorials on how to never use a stock photo again.
Studies have actually proven that reading comprehension increases significantly when reading a hard copy as opposed to the screen, and here is one of them.
Add to the fact that reading the computer screen doesn't tend to facilitate discussion with others around you. My wife and I read the paper and talk about it. That doesn't happen so much when I read the news online. But then again, doing just about anything online is so much more insular than the "real life" equivalent.
I will say this, though, the newspapers are desparate. The city I live in is remarkably a one paper town. Even with that, the other day in the grocery store a sales rep from the paper was pitching his wares like he was a crack addict. "Please please please buy my paper! I need this! You've gotta help me out here! What will it take to get you to subscribe? Well, then, can you lend me $5?" Sheesh! This would seem to indicate, anecdotally, that newspapers are hurting. Which is a shame, because at least with newspapers you are usually dealing with respected sources.
Ok, this just got worse. Now you are taking me to mean that belief in God and science are incompatible? That's not what I said. I simply re-used your argument that just because you cannot see something that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you cannot see the parallel between belief in electrons and God then I am done with this conversation. I'll look for a more intelligent one elsewhere.
Point taken about the vikings. I am not an expert on the vikings, but I am sure there was some penalty for killing a fellow viking. My point was, societies have always had laws, and many of these laws share some common threads which I'd call universal moral principles (if you don't like the word "morals" the feel free to substitite a word of your choice). Of course, some societies may have been more ruthless. But there hasn't been, to my knowledge, a totally anarchic society that has lasted for too long.
As for the bible condoning killing, yes it did as a penalty. But this was for gross and willful violations of the law (like you say, rape, murder, etc) Interestingly, the Mosiac law code allowed amnesty for accidental killers.
I see your point about morals actually aiding survival, which could nullify my argument that these things could not have evolved. However, you have to note that these values do not greatly vary based on local custom. It's almost as if there were some external stimuli that set the standard. If you don't like to think a god did this, then fine. But I don't see how you can ignore the fact that there just seem to be some universally held truths. Those don't come about by accident.
Ok "dusgruntled biologist" [sic], this was not a troll. It was a serious post, actually. And, I never said fossils lie, or the God is playing tricks or anything like that.
Your problem is that instead of making an intelligent counter-post, you attack me personally and make assumptions about my belief system based on your knowledge of some of the religious nuts out there. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean that they subscribe to pseudo-scientific "God created the earth in six literal days, dinosaurs were demons, fossil records lie" or whatever drivel the so called "ID" proponents spout off. That stuff is just as sickening as people like you who accept evolution without question. You both eat whatever society puts in front of you, so to speak. That makes you barely worthy of this reply.
First, thank you for the intelligent reply. That was probably the best reply I've recieved here in a while.
Being an engineer, my only interest is the pragmatic...The only purpose of public education is to create a productive workforce
Yup. I want my kids to recieve an education so they can pay their bills too. I would be offended if my kids kids were taught religion in school. These guys who are pushing for ID or whatever in schools seem to be a self-righteous bunch anyhow. I don't want my child's mind in their hands anymore than I'd want it in the hands of a evangelical atheist (if you'll kindly allow me to coin the term).
I will just have to say this, even though it may or may not matter to you: I believe the bible to be truth. My understanding, though, is surely lacking. If I am never again wrong about at least some facet of my belief system, then I am done for. Organized religion never claimed that the bible is right. These people claim *they* are right. That's in some ways worse than the dim-sum-theology that so many are into.
if your ideas run contrary to modern darwinian synthesis and/or evolution, or in support of intelligent design in any way, then yes they are groundless.
Eh. Things may not be as black and white as you say. We are essentially debating philosophy here (cause honestly, where are the facts and the data? we are just having a good conversation here), and that is never clear cut enough to make those types of statements.
sure i have. i have consumed carcinogens, been exposed to radiation, seen a friend who died from cancer lying dead at the funeral, and seen a cat eat a mouse that didn't manage to evade danger. these are examples of mutation events and selection events, which are the processes that caused life to exist.
A series of selection events to be sure, but stating that those events prove the entire evolutionary theory is a bit of an oversimplification. Mutation events yes, but a new life form did not result. All of that is anecdotal evidence that does not prove evolution as a vehicle for life as we know it. If you can use those, then I can provide things that run contrary to natural selection and yet exist (man's morals*, man's ability to appreciate art and beauty, ability to comprehend abstract thoughts such as mathematics). How could these things have evolved? Natural Selection states that traits arise out of necessity. Yet how are these necessary for mere survival? I see these things as clear evidence of a creator. Do things, ideas, cultures, evolve? Sure. Does that mean life is a product of evolution? I'd say not.
* I maintain that morals are a valid example. Can you think of any civilizations where theft, lying, and murder, for instance, were accepted as normal under all circumstances? Sure, some cultures, were more barbaric than others, but there have always been restrictions {read laws}, of some sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not. But in the event of a cataclysmic level 4 zombie uprising, this airship just may be the choice mode of trasnport!
That's pretty interesting...I especially liked the list of "Enemies from Within". Thanks for posting this. I tell you what: I will be on the lookout for those commies in the Consumer's Union and Civil Rights Congress!
--
Some things never change...
This is an outrage! I say you demand your money back.
Firefox has problems. So does IE. So does Opera.
As a professional web developer, I care very much about browsers. I also deal with demanding users such as yourself who nitpick and who are on some kind of power trip or something. Think about it: is someone who is coding an application for you on their free time going to spend even ten minutes reading a badly reported problem? I sure wouldn't, not when there are ten other things I can fix that are just as important to someone else. You do the most good you can do in the shortest amount of time and move on.
You may be frustrated, but you won't get anywhere assuming you submit bug reports with this same tone. I'd venture that many Mozilla developers are professional developers who do Mozdev on their own time, and probably get enough of that crap at work. It's a web browser, not a car or a space shuttle or a nuclear power plant. Deal with it, fix it, or move on to something else. Personally, I have gripes with Firefox, but I deal with them. If something better came out, I don't know about you, but I'd be all over it. But the fact that you typed this in the first place shows that you haven't found anything better. Stop trying to rake people over the coals.
wonky, that's one of the best descriptions for sound I've heard. My wonk may not be the same as your wonk, but the funny part is I know exactly what you are talking about.
or just do what I did...ring up a $150,000 order, take it all the way to the payment screen, and leave it. Once you put in bogus data, they'll have to call "you" back, unless they want to run the risk of losing an enormous order. That, with the resulting 20 page requests, ought to tie them up real good. That is, if they monitor carts.
How about an IM application that leaves me the heck alone when I am trying to get some work done?!? Let the IM'ers crack THAT nut...
/.
IM is the leading cause of unproductivity among US workers. Yes, that's right folks, it has even supplanted posting on
--
Me? Oh, I am here in the name of science!
Ah, I see you subscribe to the Hoover posterior friction coefficient. However, I would like to propose that you check out Dr Suresh Burabi's extensive catalogue of rear-end studies. Your calculations would read much differently.
No references here. What references?
Yes, but where are we going to get 40 gallons of cheez-whiz, a ladder, and 1500 gypsy moths?!?
Yep. Here on Kneejerk Reaction Central, er, sorry /., there have been a lot of good and funny comments and so forth on the topic. But in reality, this is not gonna go anywhere. This whole flap came up a while ago cause some school superintendent or someone like that thought it would be a good idea to teach kids things using a dialect of english called ebonics. Not that I care enought to research who and where and what is happening with ebonics now, but point is that it hasn't caught on. To my knowledge, no self respecting educator has embraced ebonics as a tool for the classroom. This too will die in a while after the good professor dude makes some money and ruins his credibility. Then, who knows, maybe he will try to pwn u-r windoze box, he at least seems to understand the nomenclature of the trade. a1l u-r warez r minez!!11!!1
Dumb kids will be dumb, smart kids will be smart, and rivers will always run and all kinds of crap like that.
Just to add to what was said about fake books and the fact that skill is still required to play the music in them. I play jazz (guitar) semi-professionally, and here is the deal:
Jazz is largely about improvisation. Knowing the chords to a song is important, but nobody just plays the chords. You need creativity to do improvise in a new and different way over those chords.
Again, just calling them dumb chords is quite the oversimplification. There are 12 notes, and there are many many different chords. For starters, Major, Minor, M7, m7, dom7, m7-5, dim, aug, m6, M6, m9, M9, 13, sus, 6/9, need I go on? Additionally, there are dozens of voicings for each of these chords. Do you want me to start talking about chord substition? You can take the V chord (usually a dom 7) and substitute a dom 7 at the tritone.
Music is incredibly complex. In fact, I'd argue that fake books, while allowing a musician to play a song that perhaps he has never even heard, in some ways add more complexity than if you were to just read the music. Reading music asks you to play specific notes. Fake books let you interpret the music as you see fit, on the fly, while playing for people who want to be entertained. So I guess I don't need to state that that was a bad example.
I am someone who believes in the creation account in Genesis. Now, before you all stop reading, hear me out here, cause this spiel sets the stage for what's next. The bible in not a scientific textbook. Yet it harmonizes well with science. What does not harmonize with science is the majority of Organized Religion's interpretations. I mean, they persecuted Galileo for speaking truth just because he disproved their stupidity. Now...
I would not want my children to be taught this ID stuff in school for several reasons.
First, I would find this Fundamentalist teaching objectionable just as a Buddhist or Muslim might, as I disagree with these ID viewpoints. Again, I belive in the bible but some of the things these people teach are neither scientific nor scriptural.
Second, I send my children to school so that they can learn things, like, you guessed it, science. Though I do believe that Darwinian theory will not stand the test of time, right now there is benefit to be gained from learning it. I want my children to recive this benefit. Plus, you cannot really claim that you do not believe a theory such as evolution if you don't understand it. I don't want my children to blindly accept anything.
Third, once religion becomes involved in politics you have to question its validity. These religious people who are pushing their ID agenda are just as crooked as any other politician. Why would I want their form of religious doctrine to be taught to my children?
Last of all, just how flippin lazy are these hicks, anyway? I mean, people already use school as an excuse to not have to educate their children. What, are these same people now too lazy to teach their children their all-important religious beliefs?! Come on, now. Something stinks about the whole thing. Maybe people are scared their children might start to question their beliefs, which the parents themselves cannot adequately defend? Hmmm...I smell fear, and as we all know, that leads to the dark side!
You talking about UR Quan masters? Heck yeah! It has to be one of the greatest games ever! You can get all kinds of maps at classicgaming.com (I'd find the exact URI for you except I am at work and I'd get yelled at). It has maps of hyperspace, alien home worlds, even maps of planets with good supplies of minerals. It's more fun without the cheats, but it's still cool to have if you need it.
I can appreciate your point, but I still don't like 'em. Just my opinion. Learning from them is cool. Using them is oh-so-lame.
I design web applications for a living, and I have never seen a great template. I have not seen everything under the sun, of course. I can only speak from my own experience.
Hey moderators! Don't forget to mark this as flame bait too!
Fair enough. I guess learning from templates is OK.
However, while *you* may do this, I have seen "professional" web developers present templates to comittees and the take the credit. Meanwhile, the design is full of crap stock photos code bloat. Of course, these same people get upset when you ask why they have seven layers of nested tables to lay out a page and spacer gifs and stuff like that. Yeah, that stuff was a cool hack back when html did not support style sheets, but now it's just plain bad practice. I have never seen templates that were constructed of what could be called great code. I have not seen everything, so I cannot say that this is the case everywhere, but I'd bet that's pretty close to the truth. Someone prove me wrong here...
Anyhow, the other half of the reason I replied was to commend you on your Orz sig. Awesome! I thought I was the only one who still dug that game...
Whomever just modded me down as flamebait -- you probably did that because on your last consulting job where you got PAID to design a website, you went to this site and grabbed a nifty template. It worked out too, since executives don't care about bad code and they just LOVE stock photos, especially ones of second rate models in corporate attire giving a laptop a steely stare. Plus the website probably plays sounds and all kinds of "kewl" stuff. I have seen it too many times in my professional experience.
Website templates are bad. I do not use generalities like this too often, but in this case it is merited. If you cannot design a website, or know enough to hire someone who can, then "resources" like this one will not cover your ineptitude. If you are a good programmer but cannot design well, ask for help. Learn how. Don't take a template and use it. By the time you make it fit your needs, you could have learned something. Better yet, let form follow function. Google should prove to everyone that if it works fast and well, it doesn't gotta be pretty.
There, that felt good.
Now THAT'S quality flamebait. Fire away, hosers.
I will agree. Web site templates SUCK big time. I mean, if you cannot design a web site, then what are you doing trying to produce one? Also, isn't designing them the fun part? Worst of all, these idiotic templates are often full of bloated code and bad stock photos that lend nothing to the product except to make it look "professional". Good riddance. Replace it with a website on how to design usable web sites. And tutorials on how to never use a stock photo again.
sope boXX0r racing is fun, you no. i rode a sope box down a hil 1nce and relly enjoyed it. and i am not the biggest guy arond. i hope this catches on.
Studies have actually proven that reading comprehension increases significantly when reading a hard copy as opposed to the screen, and here is one of them.
Add to the fact that reading the computer screen doesn't tend to facilitate discussion with others around you. My wife and I read the paper and talk about it. That doesn't happen so much when I read the news online. But then again, doing just about anything online is so much more insular than the "real life" equivalent.
I will say this, though, the newspapers are desparate. The city I live in is remarkably a one paper town. Even with that, the other day in the grocery store a sales rep from the paper was pitching his wares like he was a crack addict. "Please please please buy my paper! I need this! You've gotta help me out here! What will it take to get you to subscribe? Well, then, can you lend me $5?" Sheesh! This would seem to indicate, anecdotally, that newspapers are hurting. Which is a shame, because at least with newspapers you are usually dealing with respected sources.
Ok, this just got worse. Now you are taking me to mean that belief in God and science are incompatible? That's not what I said. I simply re-used your argument that just because you cannot see something that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you cannot see the parallel between belief in electrons and God then I am done with this conversation. I'll look for a more intelligent one elsewhere.
You do of course realize that I could use that exact same argument against your disbelief in God. You just beat me to it.
Point taken about the vikings. I am not an expert on the vikings, but I am sure there was some penalty for killing a fellow viking. My point was, societies have always had laws, and many of these laws share some common threads which I'd call universal moral principles (if you don't like the word "morals" the feel free to substitite a word of your choice). Of course, some societies may have been more ruthless. But there hasn't been, to my knowledge, a totally anarchic society that has lasted for too long.
As for the bible condoning killing, yes it did as a penalty. But this was for gross and willful violations of the law (like you say, rape, murder, etc) Interestingly, the Mosiac law code allowed amnesty for accidental killers.
I see your point about morals actually aiding survival, which could nullify my argument that these things could not have evolved. However, you have to note that these values do not greatly vary based on local custom. It's almost as if there were some external stimuli that set the standard. If you don't like to think a god did this, then fine. But I don't see how you can ignore the fact that there just seem to be some universally held truths. Those don't come about by accident.
Ok "dusgruntled biologist" [sic], this was not a troll. It was a serious post, actually. And, I never said fossils lie, or the God is playing tricks or anything like that.
Your problem is that instead of making an intelligent counter-post, you attack me personally and make assumptions about my belief system based on your knowledge of some of the religious nuts out there. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean that they subscribe to pseudo-scientific "God created the earth in six literal days, dinosaurs were demons, fossil records lie" or whatever drivel the so called "ID" proponents spout off. That stuff is just as sickening as people like you who accept evolution without question. You both eat whatever society puts in front of you, so to speak. That makes you barely worthy of this reply.
First, thank you for the intelligent reply. That was probably the best reply I've recieved here in a while.
Being an engineer, my only interest is the pragmatic...The only purpose of public education is to create a productive workforce
Yup. I want my kids to recieve an education so they can pay their bills too. I would be offended if my kids kids were taught religion in school. These guys who are pushing for ID or whatever in schools seem to be a self-righteous bunch anyhow. I don't want my child's mind in their hands anymore than I'd want it in the hands of a evangelical atheist (if you'll kindly allow me to coin the term).
I will just have to say this, even though it may or may not matter to you: I believe the bible to be truth. My understanding, though, is surely lacking. If I am never again wrong about at least some facet of my belief system, then I am done for. Organized religion never claimed that the bible is right. These people claim *they* are right. That's in some ways worse than the dim-sum-theology that so many are into.
if your ideas run contrary to modern darwinian synthesis and/or evolution, or in support of intelligent design in any way, then yes they are groundless.
Eh. Things may not be as black and white as you say. We are essentially debating philosophy here (cause honestly, where are the facts and the data? we are just having a good conversation here), and that is never clear cut enough to make those types of statements.
sure i have. i have consumed carcinogens, been exposed to radiation, seen a friend who died from cancer lying dead at the funeral, and seen a cat eat a mouse that didn't manage to evade danger. these are examples of mutation events and selection events, which are the processes that caused life to exist.
A series of selection events to be sure, but stating that those events prove the entire evolutionary theory is a bit of an oversimplification. Mutation events yes, but a new life form did not result. All of that is anecdotal evidence that does not prove evolution as a vehicle for life as we know it. If you can use those, then I can provide things that run contrary to natural selection and yet exist (man's morals*, man's ability to appreciate art and beauty, ability to comprehend abstract thoughts such as mathematics). How could these things have evolved? Natural Selection states that traits arise out of necessity. Yet how are these necessary for mere survival? I see these things as clear evidence of a creator. Do things, ideas, cultures, evolve? Sure. Does that mean life is a product of evolution? I'd say not.
* I maintain that morals are a valid example. Can you think of any civilizations where theft, lying, and murder, for instance, were accepted as normal under all circumstances? Sure, some cultures, were more barbaric than others, but there have always been restrictions {read laws}, of some sort.
Oh boy, don't lump me with the ID nutjobs. Or the TheoCons. Or the Catholics. My ideas don't fit into those idiot boxes.
Just as I have not observed God doesn't mean that my ideas are groundless. I'd venture that *you* have not observed evolution.
Any movement that it 100% certain of it's own validity is dead out of the gate.