All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
pudge (1)
(email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)
I run this joint, see?
Re: an unintelligent discussion of Intelligent Design
jjohn writes about Intelligent Design.
The stupid thing about momst discussions about ID is that it's just a way of saying, "hey, the theory of evolution of species doesn't preclude the Bible being true." ID is not a big deal. Nothing to see here.
jjohn writes, "So to those proponents of Intelligent Design, I implore you to pick a side: faith or science. By choosing faith, you abdicate your voice in scientific debates and inquiry for the certainty of Knowing the Truth and basking in unctuous Righeousnes. By choosing science, you must adopt its methods and put your hypothesis up for independent verification."
Saying so misunderstands the purpose and intent of ID. It also misunderstands the very nature of faith, in that it in no way conflicts with science, which is largely the point here. I think many people who were far better scientists than anyone in this ID debate and who were also people of religious faith might think such statements are pretty damned stupid.
because that's exactly how much difference there is. :-)
--Larry Wall in <10209@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Fair warning! (Score:1)
Re:Fair warning! (Score:2)
conflicts R us (Score:1)
So... about that six day thing... no conflict?
Re:conflicts R us (Score:2)
Since that is not in the Bible, yes, no conflict. What the Genesis account actually refers to are indefinite time periods, which many have translated as "days."
That said, even if it did, science does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural. That's a common misunderstanding of science.
Re:conflicts R us (Score:1)
I guess that is the great thing about Christianity... you can choose your flavor.
My bible, a King James Version, most definitely has it in there.
An
Re:conflicts R us (Score:2)
So? The original Hebrew is unclear about how long this time period is. It was translated as "day" but that is a judgment call by the translators.
If the translations are that poor, then the entire work is suspect.
If a translation is poor, that reflects on the original text? That's stupid.
Look, you obviously a. don't understand the issues of textual criticism enough to have a serious discussion about it and b. don't give a damn about ha
Re:conflicts R us (Score:1)
Not the original text, the translation. You know, the part used by almost every church in the United States.
Look, you obviously a. don't understand the issues of textual criticism enough to have a serious discussion about it
I do know that I was talking about the Bible, as used in the overwhelming majority of Christian religions in the United States.
I also know that I was talking about the practice of Christianity based on said book.
And, I
Re:conflicts R us (Score:2)
So? The original Hebrew is unclear about how long this time period is. It was translated as "day" but that is a judgment call by the translators.
The original Hebrew word used is "yom," which pretty much just means "day." I know there are some authorities out there who now claim that can mean an indefinite period, but pretty much any place where "yom" means an indefinite time period is either prophetic or poetic.
It's my understanding that there's no linguistic reason to speculate that the Creation acc
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re:conflicts R us (Score:2)
Yes, but that is just begging the question. The basic rule for the word is that context determines its meaning, just like our own "day." But the problem here is that *we don't know the context.* The Genesis account is unique. No humans
You speak for all ID proponents? (Score:1)
Re:You speak for all ID proponents? (Score:2)