I can't tell you how many times I've interviewed some "Guru" with lots of experience or certifications (and whose resume puts mine to shame) who couldn't explain to me simple stuff. (For example, what makes a language "object oriented"?) Some of them had no people skills whatsoever to boot. I certainly don't want to work with them.
I hope you are being sarcastic and don't actually believe your post. It is difficult to tell.
So let me get this straight. If an intelligent scientist in a lab creates something, it will prove that those things aren't created by an intelligence. Your logic is stunning.
If a bug is created in a lab by a scientist (i.e. an intelligence), such a scenario will support ID theory, not disprove it.
I find that the animations in the article are not at all four dimensional
Duh. That's because our screens are two dimensional, and you and I are three dimensional. Certainly you can't fault them for this? (Please tell me that I'm somehow misunderstanding this objection..)
In other words, the method that they have used does not actually visualize a fourth dimension in any mathematical or logical sense
That's nonsense. Their videos show the edges of the object (although distorted) as well as the interconnections of each of the vertices. What would qualify to you as a "real" mathematical or logical way of viewing these objects in a 3-D world?
As for your previous post:
So, the easiest way to visualize a four dimensional cube is to simply imagine multiple identical cubes, side by side, for as many as the range has been specified. Five dimensions is a flat square arrangement, six is a cube arranged array of cubes, and so on. This way, an infinite number of dimensions can be visualized. Perhaps the term "mental addressing" is more appropriate a name for this mental method.
Okay, when you get down to it, this is stuff that any programmer knows when working with arrays. (ie- int[][][][][], etc.) Now your task is to *draw* your example for us in 3-D space.
You miss the obvious fact that being a female below 16 in gymnastics is an advantage, while in swimming it's not.
Why it's there to begin with is another story entirely from the topic at hand. They probably should allow pre-16 year old women to compete. The point is, those aren't the rules in place.
Personally, I think that presidents who oppose everything liberal are heroes, but that's just me.
I'll remember your post (and link back to it) the next time someone calls a democrat an idiot on Slashdot, and gets labelled a troll. They'll see how you got off unscathed.
God forbid a democrat be called an idiot on this site. If Bush is called an idiot though, well, that's OK!
Step 1: Look for an article about Mars.
Step 2: Talk about WMDs/George Bush. Act like nobody has ever thought of the idea! (Amazing how this keeps working over and over!)
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Get points!
Yes, as you say the KJV-only crowd are an exception. I am not one of them. While I also regard this text (Mark 16:9-20) as "canonical," I also think it is not as well supported by manuscript evidence as the rest of the New Testament. Only time will tell, I suppose, if an early manuscript turns up with Mark 16:9-20.
However, I've got a feeling that some people won't be happy to see it online, since it makes no mention of the resurrection, which is a central part of Christian belief."
This is a misleading statement by the poster and the article itself. The post-resurrection text in Mark (which is the only text the article seems to mention is in contention) has always been recognized by the modern Christian church as not appearing in the earliest manuscripts. Don't take my word for it; pick up the latest NIV Bible and look at Mark 16:9-20. It most likely mentions this very fact.
The article only mentions the text in Mark missing. From the article:
The Gospel of Mark ends abruptly after Jesus' disciples discover his empty tomb, for example. Mark's last line has them leaving in fear.
"It cuts out the post-resurrection stories," said Juan Garces, curator of the Codex Sinaiticus Project. "That's a very odd way of ending a Gospel."
Unfortunately, you still need to deal with the resurrection stories in the other three gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) as well as the Old Testament references such as Psalms 16:10.
Evolutionists should welcome some scrutiny, not loathe it. It will clean out all of the already disproven crap from the biology textbooks as evidence of evolution- stuff that was disproved many decades ago still lingers.
The best evolutionists are NOT writing those school textbooks, people. Those writers are mostly schoolteachers and scientists from less prestigious schools.
I have no problem with the teaching of evolution- as long as it isn't backed up by lies.
Let me spare you replying. I'll make your arguments for you:
If they found on Mars:
1. Biological life on Mars, or soil that supports life
-Golly, that's not design, because it must be common!
2. No life, no soil with water vapor with nutrients
-That's not design, because, well, we don't see anything that looks designed! It's dead!
3. A thriving, megalopolis of alien cities with shimmering spires.
-That's not design, because we've already concluded that all of the urban design on earth is ultimately the result of the thoughts of beings created by random evolutionary processes, so it must be true on Mars too.
And by the way- there isn't any design on Earth either. We're not even really having this conversation. It's structure is therefore meaningless.
Therefore, there's no design to your arguments. Typing random keys on the keyboard is just as good an argument as the one you're about to make in reply.
You forming a reply in your head to this post is meaningless, because it has no design. It is meaningless to form it in an email and send it.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up!!!
The middleman thanks you for taking him off the menu.
Fortunately we have Earth's winters to come around and correct that shrinking.
That's global cooling, my friend. Why else would the ice cap grow so much in so little time?
Believe it or not, this explains a lot.
There's a whole lot of people running loose that can't grasp that Earth's ice cap shrinks because of the Earth's summer.
It IS reasonable.
I can't tell you how many times I've interviewed some "Guru" with lots of experience or certifications (and whose resume puts mine to shame) who couldn't explain to me simple stuff. (For example, what makes a language "object oriented"?) Some of them had no people skills whatsoever to boot. I certainly don't want to work with them.
I hope you are being sarcastic and don't actually believe your post. It is difficult to tell.
So let me get this straight. If an intelligent scientist in a lab creates something, it will prove that those things aren't created by an intelligence. Your logic is stunning.
If a bug is created in a lab by a scientist (i.e. an intelligence), such a scenario will support ID theory, not disprove it.
South Korea's also got Seoul.
"The measurement of the mass of the Omega-sub-b provides a great test of computer calculations using lattice quantum chromodynamics"
Of course it does, silly. We learned that back in the academy. Therefore it will help us to fend off the aliens attacking the Enterprise.
That article is a hackjob. The environmentalists in the lower 48 haven't a clue what is going on in Alaska's environment. She does.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300668510518137
The bullchips also swirl in the other direction.
Cattle that like to travel underwater explains how whales evolved, right?
Watch Weird Al's Rifftrax commentary for Jurassic Park. THEN you'll be impressed.
I find that the animations in the article are not at all four dimensional
Duh. That's because our screens are two dimensional, and you and I are three dimensional. Certainly you can't fault them for this? (Please tell me that I'm somehow misunderstanding this objection..)
In other words, the method that they have used does not actually visualize a fourth dimension in any mathematical or logical sense
That's nonsense. Their videos show the edges of the object (although distorted) as well as the interconnections of each of the vertices. What would qualify to you as a "real" mathematical or logical way of viewing these objects in a 3-D world?
As for your previous post:
So, the easiest way to visualize a four dimensional cube is to simply imagine multiple identical cubes, side by side, for as many as the range has been specified. Five dimensions is a flat square arrangement, six is a cube arranged array of cubes, and so on. This way, an infinite number of dimensions can be visualized. Perhaps the term "mental addressing" is more appropriate a name for this mental method.
Okay, when you get down to it, this is stuff that any programmer knows when working with arrays. (ie- int[][][][][], etc.) Now your task is to *draw* your example for us in 3-D space.
You miss the obvious fact that being a female below 16 in gymnastics is an advantage, while in swimming it's not.
Why it's there to begin with is another story entirely from the topic at hand. They probably should allow pre-16 year old women to compete. The point is, those aren't the rules in place.
The bad news: The LHC might destroy the world.
The good news: The guys who made this rap video, along with Michael Bolton, are going up in smoke with us.
The bad news: The world might come to an end.
The good news: Michael Bolton's going with us.
Personally, I think that presidents who oppose everything liberal are heroes, but that's just me.
I'll remember your post (and link back to it) the next time someone calls a democrat an idiot on Slashdot, and gets labelled a troll. They'll see how you got off unscathed.
God forbid a democrat be called an idiot on this site. If Bush is called an idiot though, well, that's OK!
Wow, you are so original!
STEPS TO GET POINTS ON SLASHDOT:
Step 1: Look for an article about Mars.
Step 2: Talk about WMDs/George Bush. Act like nobody has ever thought of the idea! (Amazing how this keeps working over and over!)
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Get points!
Yes, as you say the KJV-only crowd are an exception. I am not one of them. While I also regard this text (Mark 16:9-20) as "canonical," I also think it is not as well supported by manuscript evidence as the rest of the New Testament. Only time will tell, I suppose, if an early manuscript turns up with Mark 16:9-20.
It could happen, but it might not.
This is a misleading statement by the poster and the article itself. The post-resurrection text in Mark (which is the only text the article seems to mention is in contention) has always been recognized by the modern Christian church as not appearing in the earliest manuscripts. Don't take my word for it; pick up the latest NIV Bible and look at Mark 16:9-20. It most likely mentions this very fact.
The article only mentions the text in Mark missing. From the article:
Unfortunately, you still need to deal with the resurrection stories in the other three gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) as well as the Old Testament references such as Psalms 16:10.
For all the people who doubted for the last 5 years, we now allow you to put forth your cries of repentance.
ad infinitum
It's a good thing we have plenty of infinitum.
Evolutionists should welcome some scrutiny, not loathe it. It will clean out all of the already disproven crap from the biology textbooks as evidence of evolution- stuff that was disproved many decades ago still lingers.
The best evolutionists are NOT writing those school textbooks, people. Those writers are mostly schoolteachers and scientists from less prestigious schools.
I have no problem with the teaching of evolution- as long as it isn't backed up by lies.
Let me spare you replying. I'll make your arguments for you:
If they found on Mars:
1. Biological life on Mars, or soil that supports life -Golly, that's not design, because it must be common!
2. No life, no soil with water vapor with nutrients -That's not design, because, well, we don't see anything that looks designed! It's dead!
3. A thriving, megalopolis of alien cities with shimmering spires. -That's not design, because we've already concluded that all of the urban design on earth is ultimately the result of the thoughts of beings created by random evolutionary processes, so it must be true on Mars too.
And by the way- there isn't any design on Earth either. We're not even really having this conversation. It's structure is therefore meaningless.
Therefore, there's no design to your arguments. Typing random keys on the keyboard is just as good an argument as the one you're about to make in reply.
You forming a reply in your head to this post is meaningless, because it has no design. It is meaningless to form it in an email and send it.
No matter what they'd find on Mars, you'd think it was evidence against design. True?