crazy_geek says apparent conflicting views in the Bible can be reconciled by sufficient study.
bwoj points out that there isn't a universal agreement of what the Bible says. (I'll add, compare the Catholic Church to Jehovah's Witnesses for an example of the differences.)
It would be easier to interpret the Bible if parts of it were labeled "the following is not meant to be read as an actual history." At the very least, this would reduce the number of people think there was a global flood, or think that the 1 million+ Jews were enslaved in Egypt then spent 40 years wandering in the desert.
There would still be misinterpretations, but they would only be of a religious nature, and not include the historical misinterpretations which, in the case of the Exodus, took over 2,000 years to correct.
Everything is interpreted if it passes through a thinking brain. There is no point in trying to avoid interpretation, but it is good to aim for high quality in interpretation. In classic Christianity, good interpretation has to (1) satisfy and harmonize with the rest of the material in the Bible, (2) harmonize with the character and example of Christ, (3) carry some weight and adherence in the Church over many generations.
You pose an interesting question - one you'd think a god would be able to answer, especially if that god supposedly created us. In fact, if he can't answer it, I would question whether he is a god.
He ignores it because it is tangential to the point. The point is that windows 8 (or at least 8.1 imho) had a great ui for a touch interface and there is no reason to destroy that while trying to fix the desktop experience.
I used to be very biased against self-taught engineers until one passed our very difficult hiring gauntlet and turned out to be one of the best developers I've ever worked with.
Edit: I think my takeaway is to primarily judge people on demonstrated knowledge rather than declared knowledge.
Edit 2: But having said that I still wouldn't draw attention to the self taught thing if I were you.
Anybody with knowledge and evidence to answer a couple of questions from a very non-expert that were raised in my mind after reading the pdf and then the comments here?
1) It is the statement in the paper true that CO2 loses it's warming effect as concentration goes up?
2) Although I'm fuzzy on the warming, I'm pretty convinced we are killing our oceans. Still a little fuzzy on the exact mechanism though. If the oceans are acidifying from atmospheric CO2 (as opposed to fertilizer runoff or some such) is there evidence of this problem earlier in our planet's history when CO2 levels were much higher?
These are sincere questions hoping for informed answers.
I switched from bloglines.com to google reader years ago. I went back and checked it out after the redesign disaster and it looks quite good. I think I'm switching back to that.
I like the PBS NewsHour program. They seem to have a slight left bias that I find tolerable. I really like the way they pick two or three issues daily to go in-depth with and try to get opinions from multiple sides. I also like that the people they get opinions from seem to be the well thought, well spoken type rather than the "I can talk the loudest and make the other guy look dumb" type that the cable news networks seem to use.
