Cadmus

In the face of this powerful argument, I suggest that all non-creastionsts just give up.

Without thought, no less. it requires thought. You use the word someone, which is a pronoun that refers to people. Do you think that god is a person?

According to your bible, the earth has existed forever? I think that the exact phrase is not worth much when it is a very loose translation.

Then I was correct. You believe that god did not create the world, since you believe that matter could have always existed. Actually, he took clay, not dirt, as I understand it. In what langauge did you read the bible?

No. The universe has existed forever. If you believe that god created the universe, then where do you believe that god resided before creating the universe? If you are suggesting that all of the matter in the universe has been here forever, then you are de facto suggesting that the universe has been here forever, such that it could not have been created. Which is it?

This is incorrect. You would not be here at all. A completely different person would be here. Is your sister no more than you as a different person? No, she is not you. You would not be here. If father10 married differentmother9, the new person of your generaton might be might have very little in comon with you, genetically, as there would be 9 generations of different genes in the body of the new person who is not you.

For an answer to this question, why not try a teacher who understands something about evolution?

If either of your parents had died before you were born, then you would not have been born. Any number of other changes in their relationship could have prevented you from being born. Therefore, your parents is the nearest generation that you might look at. Identical types of changes in either of their parents could have prevented them from being born, which would in turn have prevented your birth. Your parents had parents, who had parents, changes to whom could have prevented you being born. Perhaps you could trace this scenario back as far as the beginning of life on earth, which if it had not started you would not have been born. Does this answer your question? If not, then you might consider rephrasing your question more clearly.

I don't know about this. Once space-time expands there, it becomes a where. I do like the idea of adding when.

I disagree. However, if you would prefer a different word, why don't you propose one.

When you say everything, you should remember that everything means only time and space, which is now in the form of space-time. Not so. Space-time is expanding to where no space-time had existed.

PROVE IT. By that, I mean repost, this time using all capital letters.

Both you and your biology teacher agree that you both should ignore science and replace it with some form of religion. As a student, you should believe whatever you want, however EXTREMELY poor your " analogy is, in a scientific sense. You are certainly not required to accept anything that science has to offer. I would only wish that you would not jump to scientifically poor conclusions based on a poor argument using poor evidence. Your teacher, however, should be ashamed of himself. He claims to be a biology teacher, with obviously little understanding of biology. You should drop him and find a real teacher.

Rather than answer in terms of what these words mean to me, and basically guess what you mean by these words, I would rather ask you to clarify your question.

Kygron, in the previous post, has a valid point. However, I do not agree with it. Programming has become an art form. The pre and post increment/decrement operators, together with the rest of the operators, enable programmers to create extremely compact code that is (fairly) simple to read, looks like art, and functions as well as if not better than much more verbose and ugly code. If you are an artist, learn to love your tools, the operators. If you are not, then do whatever you want. Its all the same to me, unless I were to consider you as a potential employee.

I think that there is a lot of friction in this forum in cases where the source begins with a simple misunderstanding of what other people are talking about. It is a shame. It is good that we discovered our difference here without resorting to shouting, as seems to happen all too frequently by some people.

XHTML is a reformulation of HTML 4 as an XML 1.0 application. HTML is designed to encourage sloppy design. XML is designed to encourage good design. For example, in html the following would not be an error: <p><center><b>blah blah</center></B> In XML, this would not be allowed, because the <b></B> tags mismatch case, there is an embedding discrepancy between the <center> and <b> tags, and there is no end tag to <p>. XHTML is an attempt, I believe, to encourage better page design by enforcing the types of rules that XML requires, rather than allowing the sloppiness that HTML allows. For an analogy, consider Windows and Unix operating systems. Windows assumes that users are idiots, whereas Unix assumes that users are experts. In the same way, HTML is designed to be extremely forgiving, and the parser will take a guess at what the designer intends, which increases the likelieness that the page will not perform exactly as desired. XML reduces the guesswork by enforcing better design practice.

I think that c changes over time. Still, we are all here, arent' we?

Oh. Since you did not cite to whom you were responding, I just assumed that you were refering to the topic of the thread, which refers to private companies. I did not know that you were refering to large companies, for which I tend much more to agree with you. I number of people tend not to cite the post that they are responding to. In such cases, I think that perhaps a number of people become confused as to the context of the post. I responded to your post as though the context was similar to mine. Now that I know that it was not, my arguments do not seem very relevant to yours, I agree.

This has not occured to me within the context of this argument. I do not. I think that a person in a private operation should hire who he wants. If a person wants to work around a group of beautiful blonds, with that being the only 2 criteria, then what do you and I care? Again, I don't care about this at all. Neither do most small employers, I would think. I do not agree. You seem to be establishing an ideal for business that I think does not necessarily exist. Would you force a Hutu businessman to hire a group of Tutsis, solely because they applied first and seem to be qualified? Should he reject the notion of working to support Tutsi families, would you have the Tutsis sue him for his letting a little past personal feelings cause him to violate your convictions?

I think that I understand your position now. This is certainly something that we can disagree on.

I am sorry but I don't understand what half of your post I left out, and I don't understand how your thinking differs from mine re my last post. Might you be more specific as to how my last post ignores half of your argument?

To me, this sounds like a very harsh judgment on your part. In what way did what hippie movements fail, in your opinion?