I like it too but being close to computer illiterate, I backed away from downloading.... what? I couldn't figure out what to download.

I'm with gwiz -- can it be part of the sift automatically?

Although I am getting used to seeing it now -- at first, I couldn't even tell any difference, with all the soft gray.

The idea that time exists outside of the universe is a wholly unscientific idea. If God created the universe, God exists outside of time. The only reason we assume there must be a creator to the creator is because we experience time in a linear fashion. There was no creator of the creator, because the creator was always there.

>> ^heathen:
>> ^TheJehosephat: >> ^ForgedReality: Take THAT, godlovers!!! >:[ Except that not all God-lovers are anti-evolutionists. I might be considered a creationist because I believe God sparked the creation of the universe which lead to the evolution of life on the planet. Saying that all people who have a belief in God are also scientifically illiterate is an ignorant statement in itself But then what sparked the creation of God?



EDIT: I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong with the quotes here...

>> ^TheJehosephat:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Take THAT, godlovers!!! >:[
Except that not all God-lovers are anti-evolutionists. I might be considered a creationist because I believe God sparked the creation of the universe which lead to the evolution of life on the planet. Saying that all people who have a belief in God are also scientifically illiterate is an ignorant statement in itself


But then what sparked the creation of God?

>> ^ForgedReality:
Take THAT, godlovers!!! >:[

Except that not all God-lovers are anti-evolutionists. I might be considered a creationist because I believe God sparked the creation of the universe which lead to the evolution of life on the planet. Saying that all people who have a belief in God are also scientifically illiterate is an ignorant statement in itself

This is the kind of thing that just totally blows my mind someone would actually say. Dude, we tried a private only education system already in our history. It resulted in the majority of our population being illiterate. The vast majority of people received no formal education whatsoever. A universal public education system was instituted after the industrial revolution that was compulsory, and it transformed society in the US unquestioningly for the better.

The problem isn't the "public" in "public education"; it's "education". And much of it isn't due to gov't interference. It's insistence by society to inadequately fund it. It's mistrusting and undervaluing education and learning in general (regardless of the educational institution). It's exponentially higher concern for assessing what little is learned instead of helping people actually learn and think critically.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Fedgov has zero Constitutional authority to "educate" anyone. If it got out of the education racket I imagine children would still be educated, just more efficiently and for FAR less money.

Agreed. But it's equally possible these folks are biblically illiterate and therefore don't get the joke.

>> ^nanrod:

Would have been better if he actually looked like Jesus instead of some guy in a bad wig.

The more creative someone's name is spelled the more likely I'm apt to think their parents, and they by extension, are illiterate morons who when asked by the doctor what their child's name was, just started spitting out random consonants and vowels.


Statistically, you're right. Someone studied it out - can't remember where - and people named "Jazzmyne" (or other variants, to a lesser extent) were dumber and less successful than people with the more conventional "Jasmine" (even after controlling for economic situation, etc..).

>> ^schlub:

I personally can't stand when people think they're being "creative" by changing a letter or two in a name to make it "unique":
Jackson becomes Jaxon
Aden (or Aiden) becomes Caden, Jaden, Maden, Braden, Zaden, Gaden, and so forth...
Courtney becomes Kortny (wtf?)
Wow, so clever AND unique!


The more creative someone's name is spelled the more likely I'm apt to think their parents, and they by extension, are illiterate morons who when asked by the doctor what their child's name was, just started spitting out random consonants and vowels.

I understand to some extent in that parents want their children to have a name that not everyone has. I remember being in a class where there were 4 kids named Robert, which could be a bit of a problem when trying to address one of them, but it wasn't that big of a deal, nor did it detract from the Roberts' individualism.

The only thing I find worse, is trend naming. I swear there was a period of time when parents only named their kids Austin or Taylor.

I'm pretty sure if both you folks had lived in Mexico or any other country for a quarter century you'd have the decency to address people in the language of the land. And if you were illiterate I'm sure you wouldn't clamour on about stuff that is owed to you.

This Mestizo's insolence is insulting, but we are the fools who permitted and encouraged his insularization.

This is only a problem of definition. You're defining evil to be a universal attribute that applies to both God and man, but it doesn't. That is because evil itself is defined simply as disobedience towards God, and thus something only a man can do. God cannot disobey Himself. Nothing God does could ever be defined as evil because God isn't under His own authority. God is the source of the authority which defines for us what evil actually is. Gods omniscience is not violated because it not applicable to Him.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?


Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.
And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?



Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.

And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.

It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.

Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

>> ^residue:
It's like they're trying to make this stuff viable for illiterates or something..

well that would be in fact pretty neat, wouldn't it?

It's sort of funny that every time they "reinvent" the style of the OS all anyone ever does is look for the option for "classic" mode. The worst part of reformatting every year is trying to disable all the stupid new features and get it back to classic mode (aka not-cluttered mode). A good example is trying to find anything in control panel when it isn't in classic mode.. what a PIA

I also pray that they don't change the new OS to all visual cues like the modifications they made to their office products. I STILL can't find half the options I want in the new office software when they used to be just organized via WORDS, the way it should be. It's like they're trying to make this stuff viable for illiterates or something..