I'm curious erath. With all the ranting about you style of posting massive amounts of articles at one time and the advice some here gave you on how to group some of these articles into one article. Why do you post these "daily features" with 3 completely different topics in a single article? Can you imagine how complicated it could get to know who is talking about what topic if people began to comment about all 3 topics at one time? Imagine you comment being a response to another comment but gets confused with another comment, especially if the quote feature wasn't used since not everyone uses it and one doesn't always remember to use it.

It's kinda nice you decided to take some of the advice of not flooding the forums with multiple articles at one time. But this could actually be worse in the sense of not getting any or very few comments at all due to the galore of topics on a single article.

Maybe you should try combining opinions with similar topics on the same article. But hey, it's just a suggestion.

I don't write enough for three articles on one subject, and until I have more free time I won't be able to queue up multiple articles of one subject that aren't too assimilated.

Well, to each his own. Good luck.

Spam: Could have been a bot.
Bible: Internal consistency and references to some provable historical events do not necessarily make a reliable book.
Internet (Speed): Could depend on where you are downloading from, or (if cable) how many people in your neighborhood are using it.
Internet (Reliability): I don't know. What's funny is how I'll lose my internet, but still have television. Same company, same exact line. With the rate usage is growing, I wouldn't be surprised if they have to upgrade hardware/software fairly regularly to keep up with demand. (More often than not, my internet outages are from my router overheating. Luckily, all I have to do is unplug it for about 5-10 seconds and do the same with my cable modem.)

Can you elaborate on this?  Why wouldn't it be considered reliable if what it preaches shows credibility? 

 

Spam: Yes, it may have been multiple bots, but I've banned at least four accounts, and the other admin's much better than me.
Bible: Historically proven. Incredibly historically proven, and never contradicted. It's the world's best ancient history book. It even provides census numbers. Internal consistency would probably mean that it never contradicts itself. That's not anything I'm using to judge it.
Internet (Speed): I'm talking Filefront, huge speeds always. It never has any problems.
Internet (Reliability): It's been good for a few months. I know all about the router/modem crap, it's not the problem. I count that as my own bad, not the internet company. I'm still angry about it, though. It took way too long to get it fixed last time when I had a project I was working on online. Major crapstorm. 

Well then it really just depends on the spammer. Maybe they ran out of other sites?


40 years in the desert and no artifacts left as evidence?


You don't require a book you base your life on to be internally consistent?


Who is your ISP? Could they be throttling you or certain ports you use? I know some throttle default ports for torrent clients.


I feel your pain. There is nothing like working on a project that requires remote access, in my case a senior software design and development project, and having your connection drop out.

Death to the throttling, those sons of bad words.

My point is that even if the bible didn't contradict itself, and depicts some provable historic events, that does not mean it is reliable or credible overall.

I may be able to tell you it didn't rain last Tuesday where I live, and that it won't rain for a month from now; but that doesn't mean I know jack about meteorology, and it in no way lends credence to what I may tell you in completely unrelated topics. Especially considering I live in Nevada and that statement, made on any day of the year, would be more often right than wrong.

As a fan of vampire and werewolf stories, I've read quite a few by authors that did their homework on the eras they were writing in, incorporating a lot of real history into their internally consistent fictional stories. That doesn't make them any less fictional.

Cox? Do they do throttling?

The Bible has not, and cannot be disproven. It is not fictional, either. It records events otherwise lost to man, that wouldn't add any depth to anyone any more.

well what if I were able to tell you for the next ten years that it was going to rain on any given day and I nail it with 100% accuracy?

Would I be credible then?

Because that's what the bible has done. Time and Time again. Much of the bible is prophecy and so far it's been 100% accurate. I'm not talking 20/20 hindsight. I'm talking prophetic predictions that came true.

Yes, it's 100% accurate in prediction and history.

Except for the few prophecies that have not come true yet. And they're decreasing. I know of some I can prove happened.

Certain ports, but as a general rule not that I know of.


That is a statement of faith.


You are talking about subjective interpretations of those things. People have been saying the world is about to end since we could say the words...and probably in some manner before that. How many "anti-Christs" have we had now?

BitTorrent works fine for me.

Evolution is a statement of faith.

And? Your subjective interpretations weigh in everything you say. There is nothing subjective about my interpretations, because I read before I heard others' opinions.

No, it is an induction from observed phenomenon.


While I do not deny making subjective observations of things, I couldn't say I like ice cream otherwise. I very rarely (if ever) put such things forth as though they are objective fact. If you could please show me an example...

At times I am almost objective to a fault.


You remind of this guy I encountered over on the amazon forums about a year ago. He believed he had discovered some sort of divine code to the bible...he was convinced the end of the world was going to begin in June or July...of last year.


Read what? Reading something does not make you objective, and not hearing others opinions does not mean you will not have preconceived notions.

No, it is an induction from observed phenomenon.

What observed phenomenon? How many? How thoroughly?

While I do not deny making subjective observations of things, I couldn't say I like ice cream otherwise. I very rarely (if ever) put such things forth as though they are objective fact. If you could please show me an example...

At times I am almost objective to a fault.

One can never be too objective. However, everything you say is subjective, with your spin and wording providing your opinions.

You remind of this guy I encountered over on the amazon forums about a year ago. He believed he had discovered some sort of divine code to the bible...he was convinced the end of the world was going to begin in June or July...of last year.

He's a nutjob. If we knew when God was returning, he would be lying, for He said that He would return when He was not expected.

Read what? Reading something does not make you objective, and not hearing others opinions does not mean you will not have preconceived notions.

I read the Bible alone, by myself, before ever actually hearing it explained. That's why I have so alternative interpretations of it, because I read it without taking too much information about it and its common interpretations in. Also, I read more out of ennui than expectation, so my own "preconceived notions" are very unlikely weighing into my interpretations.

 

Beneficial mutation and heredity. Unless you are talking about abiogenesis, which isn't a part of evolution.


Yes one can. It can lead to indecisiveness or absolute detachment when such is unhealthy.


Come on, I asked for an example. Surely if everything I say is weighed down by such subjective interpretations, it can't be that hard to find one. Just because you say it doesn't make it true...and please explain how it is subjective.


By that logic, all we have to do to keep him away is be expecting him at all times. That explains why the end of the world keeps getting pushed back. People keep finding out when it is going to happen.


I seriously find that hard to believe. Of all books, no one reads the bible without preconceived notions. Perhaps if your parents and everyone you encountered for a significant moment prior were agnostics in the truest sense, then you might be able to do so. What "brought you" to it, surely it couldn't have been boredom alone?


That's what you get for using Safari.


So how can you be sure your interpretations are any more accurate?

1. But hereditary requires a source, beneficial mutation is too rare to cause separate species.
2. It is unhealthy to be detached? Indecision? What's indecision?
3. You're refusing to read the words.
4. I've considered that, but, then, you aren't seriously expecting Him, then.
5. I read it at church, sure, but I didn't really hear anything about it. I read Tolkein (LoTR, not Hobbit) by 2nd grade, so it's not that surprising, isn't it? I really started reading before I got beyond the David and Goliath collection of stories. And I read the Law more than the stories, it's what interested me more.
6. I don't have admin privileges on this Mac. I'm gonna try a live-disk on an eMac. Any warnings? Also, the go boom was actually just a result of JoeUser hiding the new comment from me.
7. Because I don't make predictions not laid in stone, letter by letter.

So are you trying to talk about abiogenesis, which isn't evolution, here?


And you know this how? Some mutations are not seen as beneficial until after they have proven useful in an unforeseen manner.


Yes, people too detached from their lives may neglect aspects of it. (Of course, that has little to do with objectivity when it has gone this far, and it is getting way off track so I am fine with discontinuing this part of the conversation if you are.)


Indecisiveness. Inability to make a decision due to not having an opinion one way or the other.


What words, you've shown me none to support your claim of my supposed chronic subjectivity.


Kind of a conundrum them, isn't it. Does it matter who is expecting him to come? I mean, what if the Protestants are expecting him soon, but the Catholics think his return is way off? Whose expectations count? With billions of people on this planet, someone is bound to be expecting him at any given time.


That's rich. So you read it alone at church by yourself? No one in church was explaining it to you? Despite being in church you had no preconceptions?


Haven't touched a Mac in about two years, and then I was only doing very basic support for them. I just can't resist a dig against a software company that claims "it just works".


The more vague the better. (Hey, that rhymed.)

1. No, but it seems unlikely that hereditary changes would have any effect on evolution.
2. Yes, but wouldn't the entire community evolve together?
3. Naah.
4. I'm opinionated enough.
5. My point exactly.
6. Ah, but take it down to the nanosecond, and there'll be a gap somewhere. I don't know when He will return, and for real believers, does it really matter.
7. Yes, I did read it alone by myself in church with no explanations. I read the Law in Children's Church. How many people wanna explain the books of the Law to second graders? Also, because I was too busy reading, I paid no attention to anything going on.
8. Lucky, lucky, lucky you.
9. Clarify your point here.

Inheritable changes are evolution.


Entire community, probably. Separate communities, not necessarily. A detrimental mutation in one community/environment could be beneficial in another.


???


I'm not, though it may seem like it sometimes.


Your lack of evidence of my subjectivity is your point? (Or is the numbering off. Quotes are you friend.)


You can hope.


Well, for all the "fake" believers, they sure seem to want him to show up soon.


Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?


I don't mind macs, its the mentality I hate.


My point is the less details a prediction has, the less likely it is to be proven/provable to be wrong; and the more likely it is to fit varying events. (i.e. More amiable to subjective interpretation.)

1. What I was talking about is that hereditary traits do not change a species.
2. True that.
3. My thoughts exactly. I think I was talking about detatchment, there.
4. You are, trust me.
5. Your words prove your subjectivity. If you don't wanna be subjective, join the government's writing classes.
6. Definitely. Though I doubt anyone sincerely believes He will return at any given time unless they're a fanatic.
7. Yep, but it's their brainlessness.
8. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but it's true, which is stranger than fiction. I read OT first, then NT, so I learned law before learning most of the stories.
9. I hate Macs. Overpriced pieces of crap.
10. Ah, but I hate predictions amiable to subjective interpretation. There are so many Jesus prophesies that I can feel safe following Him.

And you've come by this knowledge how?


How can you disagree with 1. but not with 2.?


Your thoughts are "???"? Or that it is impossible for a person to be too attached?


Not as much as you might think. I really don't have a lot of opinions outside of that others should not try to force their opinions on anyone else or try to portray them as facts.


What, because I use "I". We are talking about different kinds of objectivity here if that is what you are talking about. In that case, the kind of objectivity you are talking about is irrelevant to a discussion. I'm talking about the ability to look at a situation or dataset from a perspective outside your direct interests. I'm talking about the ability to see both side of an argument. If your are not talking about my use of "I", "my", etc... then you really need to cite an example, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.


Did you mean "specific time" or "soon", by this statement. Who is to say what is too soon and what is too specific?


That is because it is! It doesn't matter which order you read them, you cannot possibly have entered the church, seen the decorations, the people dedicating their lives to it, the people all around in unity over it, and I am assuming your parents' following of it, and not been imprinted with some expectations.


Actually they've been reasonably priced for at least a year. They just aren't made with bottom of the barrel hardware. I wouldn't say they are the best buy out there, but it not like it used to be.


Can you tell me a specific one that hasn't been seen as happening more than once. (i.e. You can't have two anti-Christs.)

1. Hereditary=passed from parents. Which would mean no-change.
2. I'm a micro-evolutionist believer, macro-evolution remains beyond my grasp, though.
3. It's always possible for someone to be too attatched.
4. No, trust me, you are.
5. No, you speak your opinions, whether or not you are.
6. I mean any given point in time, there's no evidence.
8. My mother is Christian, my father is not. I was kind of in the "cheese!" style of church, but I read the Bible for theology. It's gotten better with age, by the way.
9. Nah, they cost too much. 5.5K OS-flexible, 16K Mac. Are you building these things for the preformance? That's from this year.
10. I've never heard of a prophecy being repeated. Never. There's too many factors in most of them. For instance, the Bible predicted Alexander the Great's destruction of the Persians.

Not if the parent was a mutant that passed the change onto their children.'


Micro is the droplet, macro is the ocean.


So why did you say "naah"?


Again, just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Without examples its just you blowing hot air.


Then how can one make any predictions.


So, your mother never passed any of her beliefs to you? You believe you arrived at all your beliefs independently? Do you think you would still be Christian if your mother was Hindu? "Cheese"?


Where are you seeing computers for 5K+? Or are you the type that thinks the 5% performance increase is worth a 500% price increase?


What I am talking about is how people thought Hitler was the anti-Christ, and who knows how many others, because they thought he (and the others) was fulfilling prophecy.

11. This thread now goes to "11"!
But seriously, its been great talking with you (I'm always up for a good conversation that isn't like talking to a wall); but I am about to head out on vacation, so this'll (probably) be my last post for a week or so. I'll try to remember to check out this thread when I get back. Until then...