Abuse is the one area a child does need help overstepping their parents. However, if the child is being abused, you should be going to the authorities or someone who can help with that. If the parents are looking out to protect her, which it sounds like that's maybe the case, then they should know what a 7 year old is doing. I noticed a point of if the computer isn't connected to the network then maybe there less need for protection but if there's no abuse and she's still under her parent's authority, what is the problem?
Yes I did read it. There is no evidence of an animal becoming a different kind of animal. You're right that there is speciation. I don't dispute that. There is no evidence a dog can be anything other than a dog. The burden of proof lies on the positive assertion. It is asserted (with no evidence) that an animal can, over time, become a different kind of animal. There is no evidence of it. Yes, it is possible however unlikely, but there is no evidence. We do find lizards in CA that have become new species but they are still lizards. I wouldn't dispute that wolves and household dogs of whatever breed came from a common ancestor but there is no evidence they came from anything other than a dog which had the genetic material for both types of dog.
I'm only saying it's not science because there is no evidence. Evidence is required to prove it is science.
Micro-evolution is variation within a framework. Macro-evolution is the changing of the framework. One is observable, testable science, the other is not observed or testable.
Do you say the same thing about parent's who have only one child? They must be stupid, or maybe just impotent? Why is it stupid to create life only on one planet. (Not that we know that for sure)
I wish in these discussions people would distinguish between micro-evolution which is the scientific fact and macro-evolution which is a non-testable philosophical theory and just as much science as ID.
I'm impressed that you admit you must have faith in science. That is rare people admit that. Most say they only believe what they can prove, which is in reality almost nothing.
As to the twelve, I understand that they were all part of the same movement but who brainwashed them that they saw something they didn't see to start the movement.
Uh, they don't know it's a lie, because they've been brainwashed.
Um, the twelve I was talking about all die saying they saw Jesus risen for the dead and willing to die for that. I know you can brainwash someone but did the leaders of the church brainwash each other or who brainwashed them that they saw Jesus risen?
And most of the evidence for anything in the bible is not proof. So?
My point here is that there is really almost nothing you can prove. Science, which is usually what people who discredit Christianity cling to, uses evidence that is not proof for most things. I was taught that electrons orbit the nucleous of an atom which I've reacently found isn't true but they had evidence for that. They find skeletal structures similar to land animals in dolphins and they use that as evidence that they evolved from land animals, that's not proof. They found the fossil of a fish with leg-like appendages and said it's evidence of evolution but it's not proof. Evidence that is not proof is used every day for things 99% of the world puts their faith in every day.
Josephus for one, a historian from that time is a third party that wrote to at least the existence of Jesus.
And if faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing" whether you're religious or not you have faith in things every day. You have faith that your car or bus or whatever you take to work when you need to (faith in a thing), you have faith that your boss will be there when he/she is supposed to be (faith in a person). I agree, I cannot prove my religion or the Bible or anything. I can show just as much evidence though to back up and strengthen my faith.
There is not proof but there is evidence for the Bible. People typically don't die for something they know is a lie. At least 12 people in the New Testament died for not denying that Jesus rose from the dead. What the other guy was eluding to is the archaeological evidence never proving the Bible wrong but many times backing it up. Most of the evidence for anything that happened long ago, even macro-evolution, is NOT proof.
Wow, where do you get your information? I believe Josephus collaborates at least the existence of Christ. I haven't read his works but only quotes from his works.
He was nailed to a cross for his trouble because his teachings were a threat to the established social order.
If you read the Bible when they got the most mad at him it was because He either claimed to be God or did or said things only God can say, (forgive sins).
A book about his message was constructed from the hebrew bible and from the writings of four principal authors. Three of them more or less have consensus, while the fourth and most prolific author, in whose works are all of the "mystical" or unexplainable acts of Jesus, wrote very differently about basically everything, causing many biblical scholars to believe that this fourth author - Paul/Saul of Tarsus - effectively railroaded christianity for his own ends or the ends of another who convinced him to or coerced him into doing so.
?!?!?!
For principal authors? The first four books have 4 different authors and there are at least two authors who, with some of those, wrote the other four books. All 6 of the writers of the New Testament that I can think of saw and talked to Jesus after His resurrection and believed it so strongly that all but one died because they wouldn't stop telling people about it.
Paul/Saul of Tarsus did write much of the NT but he was one of the most reputable coming from a position of such staunch opposition to the idea before becoming a Christian.
I agree one who hates homosexuals, Muslims, non-Christians, liberals, etc. is sorely deluding themselves. When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus he didn't condemn her but he did say, "Go and sin no more". I don't think it's hate speech saying something is wrong. It is wrong to hate the person but it's not wrong to correct in love.
I don't find anywhere Old or New Testament where people are told to kill people because they don't believe. The closest I can think of is when God told the Israelites to take the land He promised them and chase everyone else out but still, I can't think of anywhere in the Bible condoning killing because they don't believe.
The other thing, I'll probably get the game 'cause I think it looks fun and it might loosely portray actual events that might happen. (I don't find it hard to believe that one day Christians will again be killed for their belief in America as they are in other countries.) The Bible seems to say that in Revelation. From what I understand from reading the FAQ on the games website the Christians aren't the ones doing the killing.
Did the article say if it was adult stemm cells or embryonic stem cells were used. It seems to me it doesn't need to be a political issue. Use adult stem cells. They've shown much promise in humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Abuse is the one area a child does need help overstepping their parents. However, if the child is being abused, you should be going to the authorities or someone who can help with that. If the parents are looking out to protect her, which it sounds like that's maybe the case, then they should know what a 7 year old is doing. I noticed a point of if the computer isn't connected to the network then maybe there less need for protection but if there's no abuse and she's still under her parent's authority, what is the problem?
Yes I did read it. There is no evidence of an animal becoming a different kind of animal. You're right that there is speciation. I don't dispute that. There is no evidence a dog can be anything other than a dog. The burden of proof lies on the positive assertion. It is asserted (with no evidence) that an animal can, over time, become a different kind of animal. There is no evidence of it. Yes, it is possible however unlikely, but there is no evidence. We do find lizards in CA that have become new species but they are still lizards. I wouldn't dispute that wolves and household dogs of whatever breed came from a common ancestor but there is no evidence they came from anything other than a dog which had the genetic material for both types of dog.
I'm only saying it's not science because there is no evidence. Evidence is required to prove it is science.
Micro-evolution is variation within a framework. Macro-evolution is the changing of the framework. One is observable, testable science, the other is not observed or testable.
Do you say the same thing about parent's who have only one child? They must be stupid, or maybe just impotent? Why is it stupid to create life only on one planet. (Not that we know that for sure) I wish in these discussions people would distinguish between micro-evolution which is the scientific fact and macro-evolution which is a non-testable philosophical theory and just as much science as ID.
I'm impressed that you admit you must have faith in science. That is rare people admit that. Most say they only believe what they can prove, which is in reality almost nothing. As to the twelve, I understand that they were all part of the same movement but who brainwashed them that they saw something they didn't see to start the movement.
And if faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing" whether you're religious or not you have faith in things every day. You have faith that your car or bus or whatever you take to work when you need to (faith in a thing), you have faith that your boss will be there when he/she is supposed to be (faith in a person). I agree, I cannot prove my religion or the Bible or anything. I can show just as much evidence though to back up and strengthen my faith.
There is not proof but there is evidence for the Bible. People typically don't die for something they know is a lie. At least 12 people in the New Testament died for not denying that Jesus rose from the dead. What the other guy was eluding to is the archaeological evidence never proving the Bible wrong but many times backing it up. Most of the evidence for anything that happened long ago, even macro-evolution, is NOT proof.
Paul/Saul of Tarsus did write much of the NT but he was one of the most reputable coming from a position of such staunch opposition to the idea before becoming a Christian.
I agree one who hates homosexuals, Muslims, non-Christians, liberals, etc. is sorely deluding themselves. When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus he didn't condemn her but he did say, "Go and sin no more". I don't think it's hate speech saying something is wrong. It is wrong to hate the person but it's not wrong to correct in love.
The other thing, I'll probably get the game 'cause I think it looks fun and it might loosely portray actual events that might happen. (I don't find it hard to believe that one day Christians will again be killed for their belief in America as they are in other countries.) The Bible seems to say that in Revelation. From what I understand from reading the FAQ on the games website the Christians aren't the ones doing the killing.
Did the article say if it was adult stemm cells or embryonic stem cells were used. It seems to me it doesn't need to be a political issue. Use adult stem cells. They've shown much promise in humans.