I don't know how much weight I give the biblical flood account but when dealing with ancient literature nothing is that certain. There has been some interesting arguments in favour of this but that's far from the absolute you imply. Ancient Mesopotamia flooded a lot, cultures in the area didn't need to go far to get details on the phenomenon.

Your last statement is contradictory to the rest. Observation without controlled experiment is not science, its speculation. Controlled experiment always comes into it, you aren't completing the scientific process until you systematically test that hypothesis against observation. Anyone can pull a hypothesis out of the air and make predictions, until its applied to observation the science isn't finished. That isn't to say we can't make predictions, and look for their evidence as you were saying. How did we know what evidence an asteroid impact leaves? We studied it, we may not have been in control of the experiment but we did observe it (or its results). The author does make a good point, a lot of theories, studies, or things "proven" that hit media are many times not scientifically sound. They contain too many conclusions or predictions on too little (or poor) evidence.

Really, find a local astronomy club or group. We have local ones that do group gatherings, everyone brings out their telescopes. Usually local professors or teachers attend and love to answer questions and teach on the spot. Local observatories often do open to the public nights as well. Always professionals there to answer questions and direct.

Creationism more specifically then ID theory. Naturalistic explanation is unreasonable because the former proposes a supernatural event. This creates a naturalistic disjoint between the act of creation and the natural. It's unreasonable to expect an explanation for something that does not have to have evidence. This specifically refers to the general act. If you take young earth creationism for instance, you have a naturalistic argument interjected with a supernatural premise. This, apart from that singular premise, can be examined, debated, and rebutted from a naturalistic view point. However someone could adhere to evolutionary theory and creationism (without a derived naturalistic theory) and not be in conflict.

I did. Your argument was it didn't work, under any circumstances. This wasn't true. I've never had steam force an update on something I set not to nor has it ever locked out a game for being set not to update in offline mode. I'm sure it's game dependent but nothing I can attest to. Theres issues with not being able to install if you did not do so while online, sure. My point is that offline mode does work, not always, but that's different from never. My purpose was simply to show that some users don't have absolute bad experiences with steam, despite your personal difficulties. I can disconnect and get steam into offline mode with or without it running. It's only rarely been an issue. In stark contrast to your statements.

Worded poorly and inaccurately. It is however considered by most archaeologists to be the oldest large scale cut stone structure in antiquity.

Its certainly a pain no argument there but that's not all entirely true. If you have it set to remember your password you can go into offline mode whenever. If I don't have internet at startup when it launches it simply offers the option to go into offline mode. I just did that this morning. As for locking out your games, if you don't want them to update, set them to not update in steam. Its really that easy. I can't say how long it lasts in offline mode, but I've personally gone just over a week (no internet) without any issues. (All in windows)

That's exactly it. Intelligent Design is not a naturalistic argument and so, can't be examined as such. The moment people stop trying to give or demand a naturalistic argument for something that will never fit one is the moment we can get on with our lives. Both sides perpetuate this problem.

You're just drawing conclusions and without precedent. The article is slanted, your summary is just misleading. We all know they made mistakes, media has that one down. Now their downsizing (not news). and this article shows they're diversifying (not surprising). Why bother post this at all? If they sell off their handset line, that would be news. This is just good business.

The difference here is Mantle is shipping alongside other standard API's and AMD has publicly said they'll make it an open API when its ready. GameWorks on the other hand results in games being optimized or even dependent on nVidia specific libraries that will likely never be open. They cannot optimize drivers for it without nVidia's blessing.

I wouldn't say more so. https://developer.nvidia.com/c... Gaze on the list of proprietary technologies and libraries that lock a developer in from start to finish... Mantle is just an API like any other that has to be supported alongside directx, opengl or whatever.

You could look at it the way around. Maybe the midi-chlorians are there because of they're force sensitive, rather then the cause of it. Simply a physical response to being force sensitive.

A quick hop onto apple's website and picking the more expensive options as advised puts me at $2600 before taxes. (1800 for the air, 800 for the ipad)