Technically, Jesus and God are one in the same. John 1 and Collossians 1 both talk about Jesus as the Creator of all things. He just didn't have the name Jesus until approximately 1AD when He came to dwell among us in the flesh.
Rather than worrying about leap seconds all we really need to do is slightly alter the rotation of the earth to make it an exact 24 hour rotation. Problem solved.
I tend to use mnemonic operators (such as GT) for every second operation and symbolic operators (such as >) for every other operator....wait, I think I got that backwards.
Who is "we" in this sentence, and what are they uncovering?
The "we" is us as the human race, and more specifically, scientists.
As for what they are uncovering, I suggest doing some research. Even a simple google search will bring you many results. Here are two examples of some things that still need more study, but are very new and recent:
1. Potential DNA and fresh tissue is being found in dinosaur bones. From what we currently know about DNA and tissue, there is no way it should be able to survive millions of years. The simplest answer is that these bones are not millions of years old. Certainly, because of bias, many researchers would not consider that they could be less than a million years old so will try to come up with new theories that will answer how they could have survived millions of years. There is certainly nothing wrong with coming up with new theories and ideas and I definitely welcome it. The problem is with biases and assumptions as it can certainly stifle the finding of the truth. There are definitely many biases on both the secular and creationist sides of the issue here.
2. Lucy (often deemed as one of the first missing links found) has recently been shown to possibly have at least one bone from a baboon.
Also, this one isn't so new but is often overlooked. The age of rock layers are generally determined by the fossils found in them, and the age of the fossils are generally determined by the age of the rock layers. The fossil layer isn't as clean cut as it shows in the text books and often we find fossils at layers that they should apparently not be in.
Even if there is one true religion (or belief system), that does not necessarily mean the others are "made up" by humans. There are different categories of religions. For example, many religions that are more philosophical in nature have evolved over time and are not necessarily directly "made up" by humans. Of course, there are cults leaders that have made up their own religions, but they are in the minority. Then you have Islam as an example where Mohammad had originally thought that a demonic spirit or the devil gave him the words to write. Assuming that is true, that means it did not come from God or humans.
Now, that leaves us with the one true religion (if it exists) which would have been given by God, but as it was passed down from one generation to another may have been distorted (both intentionally and unintentionally) leading to variations from what God had originally given. Now, if God spoke to His creation at one time, it is also possible He is still speaking to it today. If so, there would be ways to hear His voice. And because this God may operate on a completely different level, it may not be possible to hear His voice scientifically, but spiritually. So, when looking for the evidence of the existence of God, it must be done so through a spiritual paradigm more so than a physical paradigm.
As for which has more soft-evidence, I think the real question is which theory is lacking the necessary evidence to support it. The more details we uncover about evolutionary theory, the more we realize how much is actually missing for it to be true.
Creationists are simply pointing out that there is no hard evidence for evolution. Evolution is an assertion that is not based on facts. This posting which claims that creationists are manipulating search results is also an assertion not based on facts. It would seem that there is a common theme running here.
The contradiction that many people noticed in my religious school was this: Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel, meaning one son was left...If Adam and Eve were the first two people, and they had only one surviving son, then where did the city of people, the wife, and the land of Nod come from?
This is yet another of the many arguments that a lot of atheists put forward as being a contradiction. Rather than studying the passages for themselves, they just pass around the same arguments that they hear from others. I'm not coming down on atheists here, I'm just stating a fact. Many Christians do the exact same thing. Whether you are an atheist or a Christian, if you do not do your research on something that you are arguing about, you just end up looking foolish.
In regards to your point specifically, the Bible clearly states that Adam (and assumably Eve) had many sons and daughters. For example, see the following from Genesis 5:
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
Chapter 1 - Male and Female are created simultaneously.
Chapter 2 - Adam and Eve are created in that order.
One of the two accounts must be false - they are mutually exclusive factual statements.
That is the dumbest argument that I have ever heard. If I told you yesterday that me and my wife had two kids, and then tomorrow I tell you that one of my kids is 6 years old and the other is 8 years old, you cannot make a case that those two statements are mutually exclusive so that one must be false. That is no different than the two accounts in Genesis. Chapter 1 is giving an entire overview of the creation of the universe, whereas Chapter 2 gets into the specific details about a specific part of that universe.
Yes, not sure what you mean by 'proven', but we should certainly respect each person's choice to follow their own beliefs. It does not, however, mean that we have to accept their beliefs or water down our own beliefs just for the sake of political correctness.
That's the politically correct thing to say. In actuality there is no truth to that. For example, Muslims reject the Biblical teaching that Jesus is the God who is the Creator of all things (John 1, Collosians 1, Hebrews 1, etc.) so in reality Muslims reject the God of the Bible. Likewise, Christians reject the God who is displayed in the Qur'an as it contradicts the God from the Bible. The original Qur'an actually said that Allah had three divine daughters: el-Lat, el-Uzza, and Manat. Muhammed later changed this and said he was hearing that from Satan when he thought he was hearing it from God.
Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile doesn't see that as a problem because it has "amazingly good security."
Only a few months ago T-Mobile's websites had a major security hole allowing hackers to access all kinds of information about users:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/...
I've managed close to that 10 hours/day for years and I still haven't killed anybody.
It's very rare for heavy duty gamers to cause assault to people in the real world because they are rarely in the real world.
Then why do I have this insatiable desire to hurl fireballs at shelled creatures?
Obviously the Intergalactic Police are making sure they do not travel faster than the posted galactic speed limit.
If you define breakfast as the first meal of the day, then if you skip breakfast for a few days you will die.
Not if I eat the second and third meals of the day.
Also, don't you mean Jesus?
Technically, Jesus and God are one in the same. John 1 and Collossians 1 both talk about Jesus as the Creator of all things. He just didn't have the name Jesus until approximately 1AD when He came to dwell among us in the flesh.
Ever since playing Super Mario Brothers I've had this insatiable urge to hurl fireballs at my enemies.
For those interested: Materials science in science fiction
Let the eugenics wars begin!
Rather than worrying about leap seconds all we really need to do is slightly alter the rotation of the earth to make it an exact 24 hour rotation. Problem solved.
I tend to use mnemonic operators (such as GT) for every second operation and symbolic operators (such as >) for every other operator. ...wait, I think I got that backwards.
Who is "we" in this sentence, and what are they uncovering?
The "we" is us as the human race, and more specifically, scientists.
As for what they are uncovering, I suggest doing some research. Even a simple google search will bring you many results. Here are two examples of some things that still need more study, but are very new and recent:
1. Potential DNA and fresh tissue is being found in dinosaur bones. From what we currently know about DNA and tissue, there is no way it should be able to survive millions of years. The simplest answer is that these bones are not millions of years old. Certainly, because of bias, many researchers would not consider that they could be less than a million years old so will try to come up with new theories that will answer how they could have survived millions of years. There is certainly nothing wrong with coming up with new theories and ideas and I definitely welcome it. The problem is with biases and assumptions as it can certainly stifle the finding of the truth. There are definitely many biases on both the secular and creationist sides of the issue here.
2. Lucy (often deemed as one of the first missing links found) has recently been shown to possibly have at least one bone from a baboon.
Also, this one isn't so new but is often overlooked. The age of rock layers are generally determined by the fossils found in them, and the age of the fossils are generally determined by the age of the rock layers. The fossil layer isn't as clean cut as it shows in the text books and often we find fossils at layers that they should apparently not be in.
Even if there is one true religion (or belief system), that does not necessarily mean the others are "made up" by humans. There are different categories of religions. For example, many religions that are more philosophical in nature have evolved over time and are not necessarily directly "made up" by humans. Of course, there are cults leaders that have made up their own religions, but they are in the minority. Then you have Islam as an example where Mohammad had originally thought that a demonic spirit or the devil gave him the words to write. Assuming that is true, that means it did not come from God or humans.
Now, that leaves us with the one true religion (if it exists) which would have been given by God, but as it was passed down from one generation to another may have been distorted (both intentionally and unintentionally) leading to variations from what God had originally given. Now, if God spoke to His creation at one time, it is also possible He is still speaking to it today. If so, there would be ways to hear His voice. And because this God may operate on a completely different level, it may not be possible to hear His voice scientifically, but spiritually. So, when looking for the evidence of the existence of God, it must be done so through a spiritual paradigm more so than a physical paradigm.
As for which has more soft-evidence, I think the real question is which theory is lacking the necessary evidence to support it. The more details we uncover about evolutionary theory, the more we realize how much is actually missing for it to be true.
Creationists are simply pointing out that there is no hard evidence for evolution. Evolution is an assertion that is not based on facts. This posting which claims that creationists are manipulating search results is also an assertion not based on facts. It would seem that there is a common theme running here.
Is this the beginning of what could become Star Trek-like replicators?
I'd say more likely this will usher in the era of Stargate-like replicators.
...and not one has said that killing the founder of Twitter is a good idea!? </s>
Why would someone say that? Most sane people are not in support of the murder of others.
Apparently the drugs were kept in zip lock bags. Hopefully the DEA can shut the zip lock bag company down for co-conspiring as well.
The contradiction that many people noticed in my religious school was this: Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel, meaning one son was left...If Adam and Eve were the first two people, and they had only one surviving son, then where did the city of people, the wife, and the land of Nod come from?
This is yet another of the many arguments that a lot of atheists put forward as being a contradiction. Rather than studying the passages for themselves, they just pass around the same arguments that they hear from others. I'm not coming down on atheists here, I'm just stating a fact. Many Christians do the exact same thing. Whether you are an atheist or a Christian, if you do not do your research on something that you are arguing about, you just end up looking foolish.
In regards to your point specifically, the Bible clearly states that Adam (and assumably Eve) had many sons and daughters. For example, see the following from Genesis 5:
Chapter 1 - Male and Female are created simultaneously.
Chapter 2 - Adam and Eve are created in that order.
One of the two accounts must be false - they are mutually exclusive factual statements.
That is the dumbest argument that I have ever heard. If I told you yesterday that me and my wife had two kids, and then tomorrow I tell you that one of my kids is 6 years old and the other is 8 years old, you cannot make a case that those two statements are mutually exclusive so that one must be false. That is no different than the two accounts in Genesis. Chapter 1 is giving an entire overview of the creation of the universe, whereas Chapter 2 gets into the specific details about a specific part of that universe.
Yes, not sure what you mean by 'proven', but we should certainly respect each person's choice to follow their own beliefs. It does not, however, mean that we have to accept their beliefs or water down our own beliefs just for the sake of political correctness.
That's the politically correct thing to say. In actuality there is no truth to that. For example, Muslims reject the Biblical teaching that Jesus is the God who is the Creator of all things (John 1, Collosians 1, Hebrews 1, etc.) so in reality Muslims reject the God of the Bible. Likewise, Christians reject the God who is displayed in the Qur'an as it contradicts the God from the Bible. The original Qur'an actually said that Allah had three divine daughters: el-Lat, el-Uzza, and Manat. Muhammed later changed this and said he was hearing that from Satan when he thought he was hearing it from God.
Wow, someone should patent that idea!
I suppose next you are going to tell us that Edison never invented the light bulb and Franklin never discovered electricity.
It's a question of albedo.
It's times like this that I'm happy to be a creationist.