Yes, I admit we read the bible based on assumptions. But isn't that the only way to read a book? Do you with 100% accuracy what Darwin meant? I don't think so. The fact is, its impossible to read any book without assumptions.
Second, I can prove you aren't the second coming of God because you obviously lack sufficient knowledge of the bible. You understand way less than you think you do.
Okay.. umm.. I don't see what equating the Bible with Homer does for your point but I guess I'll throw in a moan to make it sound like you made a good point. *moan*
Truthfully, you were right, you didn't make any claims about your intelligence, UNTIL you say that someone who "believes because they are told to believe doesn't deserve their brain". I suppose you came to the conlusions you did completely by yourself, no aid from anyone. Way to go hypocrite! +5 Contradiction for you!
Actually you can prove something without something else, it's called inductive reasoning. I'd point you towards Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, but I don't think you can handle too much truth at once.
It pisses me off how aethiests scream "but you can't disprove it!!!!" I'm sorry.. but isn't that what makes something true?!?! God's existence has been proven many many many times. But every aetheistic philosophy is based on the assumption there is no God. Can you prove that? No.. I have yet to see someone prove there is no God. Just because there might be evolution does not disprove God. Because the universe may have started witha giant bang does not mean there is no God. And even if time is circular, that does not mean there cannot be God. Yet the very fact that things like justice exist seems to prove there must be a God, and if not a God in the usual sense, some Platonic Idea.
Of course you can disprove Santa, he was a temporal being, temporal beings die, Santa must have died.
Pfft, "created in the image of God" only implies the soul. And I don't think you can easily disprove the existence of the soul.
It is possible to prove the Bible's legitamacy to a reasonable extent. First, The Jews kept the Bible in the highest easteem, it is nearly rediculous how carefully they guarded it. Add to that how much the Bible reveals about them. It makes them look like a horrible race of people at most times. But they always, and still hold it as the inspired word of God. As for the New Testament, it was written by the Catholic Church, and it follows that they would know what parts of it are legitimate. As for translations, they have always been subject to rigorous standards, and each Catholic translation MUST conform directly to either the Latin of the Greek. Other than translation, the Catholic Bible has not been "tinkered" with.
So the Church is supposed to accept any book to the canon? Thats rediculous! When you write a documentary do you use every source on the subject regardless content, or do you choose the ones that are true? The Bible is merely a collection of books inspired by God, why would it add a book like the Gospel of St. Thomas if it was merely a fantastical story (as the Gospel of St. Thomas is)?
I don't understand your claim that the Bible is without context, it seems to be in perfect context to me.
What I find amazing, is how people can be so cynical and have the audacity to believe in al lthese consppiracies. it's rediculous! They like to point and laugh at you for believing in a God, then they turn around with their posse and start whispering about how the world is out to get them! Talk about self-serving! Like the whole world is out to trick you.
I'm a Roman Catholic, I've read Protestant stuff. Personally, I've found the Catholic church to be far more open and allowing than any other Christian church out there. It isn't the Catholic church that is saying Evolution is bunk, it is the Protestants, and the die-hard literalists. The Catholic Church does not claim to be an authority on science, it merely says that God made th
screw playing old games on new systems, I'd like to see Halo 2 on PC> I have it on my Xbox, but I want it on my PC. Like alot of people, I'd rather play FPS games on the computer. Much more comfortable.
I've been looking for a new video card and I'm glad to see this sort of thing. Right now i have a Radeon 9250 and I can play with most graphics settings on minimum-medium...
Just as a side thought, does Islam have a governing body that translates the Koran? Or is it all meant to be taken literally?
The Catholic Church, which wrote the Bible, distinguishes some of the bible to be literal and some to be symbolic. Secondly, the Bible is also meant historic most of the time it is literal, so just because it talks about pillaging and raping doesn't necessarily mean it advocates it, true? Also... Jewish society didn't believe in rape, or killing children, so I don't see how the Bible would advocate it, other than saying it happened or using it symbolically.
The Catholic church has never changed its teachings, it has only added to them. So saying that society has changed doesn't actually work with the Catholic Church, it would like to adhere to the same society it defined 2000 years ago. And I assure you, the Pope would not advocate stoning a child.
I do realize that this could lead to someone screaming and pointing to the crusades. But the Crusades were against Muslim's who had taken land that previously belonged to the church/europe/whetever. The Catholic Church has always allowed self defence. The Crusades never attacked the Islam's homeland. (i.e. Arabia) Thus they were acts of defence and not offence.
Of course if there is some institution in Islam that is supposed to translate the Koran I'd like to hear what they say about the more disturbing parts of the Koran.
Breaking News!
The latest research developments out of MIT have found that people actually spend more time where there are comfortable chairs and food!
I'd say we are, but I wouldn't blame ID. I *WOULD* blame Evolutionists who seem to totally ignore any other options. Many believers in ID believe in it for scientific reasons, and many believe in evolution for quasi-religious reasons.
The problem is, Evolutionists are quick to point the finger at Creationists as irrational, religiously fanatics souly base on the fact that it has religious roots. But the fact is, neither can be proved, no one was there and it cannot be reproduced, thus *ANY* ideas about the start of everything are essentially "religious beliefs".
The sad thing is, "science" (or so its called) today is based more on "prove the anomalies wrong" rather than "adjust your hypothesis for the anomalies". Granted there are religious fanatics who hang on to Creationism on purely religious grounds, but we're in America, freedom of speech... rather amazing at how much/.ers wants to limit some people's speech.
Evolutionists feel they are so smart because they are empirical *ss-holes, Creationists think they have God's backing. Both groups are f*cked up and need fixing. We'll only reach a solution when sides want to talk, and neither side will, so both are guilty of being unscientific and religiously fanatic for avoiding the scientific method in exchange for gripping to a small belief that in reality has no bearing on living well or as a human being. Which personally.. I think its better to live as a human being that define one... but if you can do the last one then you can easily do the first.
Personally, I always thought eyes were a bad example
How about wings? At one point the soon-to-be-wing would be impossible to use, with fingers that are waaaaaaaaay to long, I see this as a direct disadvantage that should have died out quickly.
Second, sexual reproduction. How in the world would sexual reproduction come about?
1) Why advance past cellular fission? It works, why change?
2) Gestation periods are rediculous, it is totally the opposite of what SHOULD have evolved.
3)Animals in "heat", again, another pointless "advancement", what advantage does this have to anything?
Also.. how did trees evolve? what do plants actually gain? I mean... plants don't have any sort of survival instincts.
And just a side question, what stopped our evolution? Why don't wee see anymore advances? Even slight? Also... no known mutation is good, Sure people like to point out sickle cell anemia, but that seems to be considered a disability.
I would just like to point alot of people towards Cardinal Ratzingers "In the Beginning", it basically changes my mind set, and most people don't realize the sort of things he says in there.
Basically, for a Catholic, evolution is a theory, thats all it should be for anyone. Catholics are "allowed" to believe what they want, what we *must* believe is that how ever creation came about it was God's design. Hell, we don't give a shit if it's evolution.
Anyway, for me it isn't evolution or creation, it is creation and *cause*. But to me evolution has too many holes, the few above are just examples that I've come across in my studies. I don't believe it is not a sufficient cause. Personally, I don't believe we've exactly nailed the cause of everything,.ersonally, I don't claim to know the cause for everything, i just hope people are open to debate about these "theories" so we can gain a deeper understanding of their implications and build a "Grand Unified Theory of Creation"
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, I know a guy who served at the pentagon, and he was one of the main propponents of methane. xD
Personally I buy as straight from the artist as I can.
Yes, I admit we read the bible based on assumptions. But isn't that the only way to read a book? Do you with 100% accuracy what Darwin meant? I don't think so. The fact is, its impossible to read any book without assumptions.
Second, I can prove you aren't the second coming of God because you obviously lack sufficient knowledge of the bible. You understand way less than you think you do.
Okay.. umm.. I don't see what equating the Bible with Homer does for your point but I guess I'll throw in a moan to make it sound like you made a good point. *moan*
Truthfully, you were right, you didn't make any claims about your intelligence, UNTIL you say that someone who "believes because they are told to believe doesn't deserve their brain". I suppose you came to the conlusions you did completely by yourself, no aid from anyone. Way to go hypocrite! +5 Contradiction for you!
Actually you can prove something without something else, it's called inductive reasoning. I'd point you towards Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, but I don't think you can handle too much truth at once.
It pisses me off how aethiests scream "but you can't disprove it!!!!" I'm sorry.. but isn't that what makes something true?!?! God's existence has been proven many many many times. But every aetheistic philosophy is based on the assumption there is no God. Can you prove that? No.. I have yet to see someone prove there is no God. Just because there might be evolution does not disprove God. Because the universe may have started witha giant bang does not mean there is no God. And even if time is circular, that does not mean there cannot be God. Yet the very fact that things like justice exist seems to prove there must be a God, and if not a God in the usual sense, some Platonic Idea.
Of course you can disprove Santa, he was a temporal being, temporal beings die, Santa must have died.
Pfft, "created in the image of God" only implies the soul. And I don't think you can easily disprove the existence of the soul.
It is possible to prove the Bible's legitamacy to a reasonable extent. First, The Jews kept the Bible in the highest easteem, it is nearly rediculous how carefully they guarded it. Add to that how much the Bible reveals about them. It makes them look like a horrible race of people at most times. But they always, and still hold it as the inspired word of God. As for the New Testament, it was written by the Catholic Church, and it follows that they would know what parts of it are legitimate. As for translations, they have always been subject to rigorous standards, and each Catholic translation MUST conform directly to either the Latin of the Greek. Other than translation, the Catholic Bible has not been "tinkered" with.
So the Church is supposed to accept any book to the canon? Thats rediculous! When you write a documentary do you use every source on the subject regardless content, or do you choose the ones that are true? The Bible is merely a collection of books inspired by God, why would it add a book like the Gospel of St. Thomas if it was merely a fantastical story (as the Gospel of St. Thomas is)?
I don't understand your claim that the Bible is without context, it seems to be in perfect context to me.
What I find amazing, is how people can be so cynical and have the audacity to believe in al lthese consppiracies. it's rediculous! They like to point and laugh at you for believing in a God, then they turn around with their posse and start whispering about how the world is out to get them! Talk about self-serving! Like the whole world is out to trick you.
I'm a Roman Catholic, I've read Protestant stuff. Personally, I've found the Catholic church to be far more open and allowing than any other Christian church out there. It isn't the Catholic church that is saying Evolution is bunk, it is the Protestants, and the die-hard literalists. The Catholic Church does not claim to be an authority on science, it merely says that God made th
Actually, I have played loosely a turn based MMORPG... but then.. that was a technical thing and you really didn't notice it was turn based at all.
But I like WLAN!
What avout the Sun's age? I've read the Sun is getting hotter, and of course it'd be getting hotter since the sun is getting older.
Half the bible, excuse me.
50 || > roundup?
You give a bunch of college kids root access to a public access server?
how many porn sites do you host?
" Is it just me or are the main characters [rapidgaming.com] in each new FF slowing morphing into a single gender?
Is it just me or are they running out of character poses?
But does it run on Linux?
We could just have a leap year every 30758400 years =P.
Kinda like leap birthdays.. every 1424 or so years you turn two years older.
Or we can use earthquakes to adjust the earth's rate of spin to remain constant. *shrug*
SOme scientists have too much time on their hands.
So somehow life traveled through the continuum of space in 15 days? =P
screw playing old games on new systems, I'd like to see Halo 2 on PC> I have it on my Xbox, but I want it on my PC.
Like alot of people, I'd rather play FPS games on the computer. Much more comfortable.
I've been looking for a new video card and I'm glad to see this sort of thing. Right now i have a Radeon 9250 and I can play with most graphics settings on minimum-medium...
Just as a side thought, does Islam have a governing body that translates the Koran? Or is it all meant to be taken literally?
The Catholic Church, which wrote the Bible, distinguishes some of the bible to be literal and some to be symbolic.
Secondly, the Bible is also meant historic most of the time it is literal, so just because it talks about pillaging and raping doesn't necessarily mean it advocates it, true? Also... Jewish society didn't believe in rape, or killing children, so I don't see how the Bible would advocate it, other than saying it happened or using it symbolically.
The Catholic church has never changed its teachings, it has only added to them. So saying that society has changed doesn't actually work with the Catholic Church, it would like to adhere to the same society it defined 2000 years ago. And I assure you, the Pope would not advocate stoning a child.
I do realize that this could lead to someone screaming and pointing to the crusades. But the Crusades were against Muslim's who had taken land that previously belonged to the church/europe/whetever. The Catholic Church has always allowed self defence. The Crusades never attacked the Islam's homeland. (i.e. Arabia) Thus they were acts of defence and not offence.
Of course if there is some institution in Islam that is supposed to translate the Koran I'd like to hear what they say about the more disturbing parts of the Koran.
You mean it's a religion of "piece" they want your piece and they want my piece. =P
I'd like to believe that Islam is so peaceful... but from what I've read in the Koran it sounds like they advocate rape and pedaphilia.
Dang, from the headline I was thinking the article would be something like
"After a memo was leaked rwecently Microsoft is turning it's focus on securing..."
Wishful thinking I suppose...
Breaking News!
The latest research developments out of MIT have found that people actually spend more time where there are comfortable chairs and food!
me too, I was thinking there was some debate about whether programs under GPL can rewrite your drive....
We've been on the American list for a while now... like.. since it was put out =P. it works well
. Though, interestingly lately we've been getting an odd hang-up sort of call from Quebec.... o.0
SO.. stay away from tomatos? (Solanum)
I'd say we are, but I wouldn't blame ID. I *WOULD* blame Evolutionists who seem to totally ignore any other options. Many believers in ID believe in it for scientific reasons, and many believe in evolution for quasi-religious reasons.
/.ers wants to limit some people's speech.
The problem is, Evolutionists are quick to point the finger at Creationists as irrational, religiously fanatics souly base on the fact that it has religious roots. But the fact is, neither can be proved, no one was there and it cannot be reproduced, thus *ANY* ideas about the start of everything are essentially "religious beliefs".
The sad thing is, "science" (or so its called) today is based more on "prove the anomalies wrong" rather than "adjust your hypothesis for the anomalies". Granted there are religious fanatics who hang on to Creationism on purely religious grounds, but we're in America, freedom of speech... rather amazing at how much
Evolutionists feel they are so smart because they are empirical *ss-holes, Creationists think they have God's backing. Both groups are f*cked up and need fixing. We'll only reach a solution when sides want to talk, and neither side will, so both are guilty of being unscientific and religiously fanatic for avoiding the scientific method in exchange for gripping to a small belief that in reality has no bearing on living well or as a human being. Which personally.. I think its better to live as a human being that define one... but if you can do the last one then you can easily do the first.
fin.
</philosophical rant>
Personally, I always thought eyes were a bad example
.ersonally, I don't claim to know the cause for everything, i just hope people are open to debate about these "theories" so we can gain a deeper understanding of their implications and build a "Grand Unified Theory of Creation"
How about wings? At one point the soon-to-be-wing would be impossible to use, with fingers that are waaaaaaaaay to long, I see this as a direct disadvantage that should have died out quickly.
Second, sexual reproduction. How in the world would sexual reproduction come about?
1) Why advance past cellular fission? It works, why change?
2) Gestation periods are rediculous, it is totally the opposite of what SHOULD have evolved.
3)Animals in "heat", again, another pointless "advancement", what advantage does this have to anything?
Also.. how did trees evolve? what do plants actually gain? I mean... plants don't have any sort of survival instincts.
And just a side question, what stopped our evolution? Why don't wee see anymore advances? Even slight? Also... no known mutation is good, Sure people like to point out sickle cell anemia, but that seems to be considered a disability.
I would just like to point alot of people towards Cardinal Ratzingers "In the Beginning", it basically changes my mind set, and most people don't realize the sort of things he says in there.
Basically, for a Catholic, evolution is a theory, thats all it should be for anyone. Catholics are "allowed" to believe what they want, what we *must* believe is that how ever creation came about it was God's design. Hell, we don't give a shit if it's evolution.
Anyway, for me it isn't evolution or creation, it is creation and *cause*. But to me evolution has too many holes, the few above are just examples that I've come across in my studies. I don't believe it is not a sufficient cause. Personally, I don't believe we've exactly nailed the cause of everything,
Interesting.... aw well, guess it doesn't matter since they won't have gunpowder =P
I started off with PERL, then moved to PHP... and that was before I knew HTML.
Tell yo uthe truth, the whole drag-and-drop thing never seemed like "coding" to me. It seemed like.... a waste of time.