How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?
What are legislators doing changing my light bulbs?? Are they going to change the toilet tissue rolls and vacuum the floor too? Are we going to have government agents from BATFL (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Lightbulbs) come inspect our houses for compliance?
Whatever the reality, it is slowing down in the media. And at this rate, thirty years from now they'll be reporting that humans are causing global cooling.
But who do we email if we have evidence of news organizations purporting to uncover instances of research being stifled themselves stifling submissions of evidence of journals stifling inconvenient findings on climate research?
I hesitate to point out the obvious, but BBC has a favored side in this debate. The BBC has shown to be untrustworthy on a variety of issues.
Another article covering this discovery puts the difference at 96%.
Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar.
Do we know of any mammoth that had a tail like a cedar tree? Elephants have very narrow tails. Furthermore, the behemoth spent significant amount of time in the water and marsh, suggesting possibly an amphibian or reptile. A dinosaur seems to fit the bill.
The latter part of the 40th chapter of the book of Job, especially verse 17a, describes an animal ("behemoth") that does not exist today. By process of elimination of historically considered animals, it seems that the only valid candidate would have to be a dinosaur such as we see in the fossil record.
It is fascinating to read early Bible commentators who struggled to find an animal that fit the Biblical description. At least as early as 1870, some scholars became resigned to the belief that the behemoth beast was an extinct animal. Now, we have constructed models of past animals to look at to give visible substance to our faith. (Not that we needed it, but it doesn't hurt.)
Finally, people enjoy the size of the cover art. Cover art died with the CD, a great many people believe that.
No, it didn't. Remember the long boxes CDs used to be packaged in? You can blame the environmentalists for killing cover art. But personally, I never had a great attachment to it.
In combination with his intended message, his death is probably a good lesson to leave nature alone, and that's one of the best environmental messages one can give.
His death is a good lesson for environmentalists not to try to "save the animals," because they are just a bunch of ungrateful bastards! Look at everything Mr. Erwin did for them, and then they murdered him in cold blood. I think the stingrays were insulted that the likes of Steve Erwin think they need to be the protectors of the animal kingdom.
By the way, are the authorities sure he was killed by a stingray and not some other animal? I saw a picture of his injury, and it looked like the result of laser beams. Frickin' laser beams.
On a serious note, I'm sorry he's gone. Condolences to his family.
so if i say to you that osama bin laden believes in god, and justifies what he does in the name of god, does that invalidate or diminish the idea of god in your mind?
Bin Laden worships the god of Muhammad, which has a different character and has very different goals and moral standards from the God of the Holy Bible. Atheists try to lump all gods into one, but they're not the same.
if i believe in idea x (evolution) and i believe in idea y (genocide), the fact that idea y is stupid/ wrong does not automatically mean idea x is stupid/ wrong. nor does it mean that if i believe in idea x, that i must also believe in idea y
Did you read the first line of the first linked page? "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible." - Edward Simon
When Darwin published The origin of species, it pissed off a lot of people.
Yeah, but not everybody. When Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, it did not botherthe Nazisat all.
I suspect the reason these people were pissed off is because they can't fathom that new observations means that what they were taught before was wrong, and that the new information gives a better approximation of reality.
You misspelled "fabrications*."
* regarding the first two, which absolutely are not and cannot be observed (seen, watched)
I have seen the answers to most of your questions on the Answers in Genesis site, or in Genesis itself. You can look them up as well as I can. If you really want to know.
According to the Holy Bible, humans are made "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). All other creatures are not.
Whoever kills an animal is to make restitution [to the owner] for it, but whoever kills a person is to be put to death. - Leviticus 24:21
Preemptive disclaimer: I do not believe that the Elder Testament has been rendered obsolete by the Newer, so please don't accuse me of hypocrisy because I quote it to support my position. Leshanah tovah.
I should be asking you that question, in response to your profession of evolutionism. The fossil record has had a rocky relationship with evolution (no pun intended), but is a helpful friend to the creationist. It is a great witness to the truth of the Biblical Flood account.
Despite the fact that genetics has showed the close relationship between taxonomically-similar species?
Which is not evidence for evolution.
Despite direct observations of evolution in action?
"Evolution" only by the elimination or rearrangement of genes. Show me where genetic information is increased. (Actually, the evolutionist must begin his progression from a point where there is no DNA at all!) By the way, speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.
In fact, despite all of the evidence supportive of the Theory of Evolution?
In fact, you have failed to show me any so far.
I plan to exercise a little curiosity and humility
That would be nice for a change. Let me know when you begin to implement your plan.:)
and find out a little about the world I'm privileged to live on.
Oops, you slipped. Cosmic privileges are outside the domain of evolutionist/naturalist doctrine, because they are, by definition, benefits granted by an authority. Fortunately, you are (unwittingly) correct. The Creator God has bestowed us the privilege of living on this world.
it has copious interlocking evidence on many different levels supporting the theory.... Ultimately, what theory best represents the world as we see it?
Interlocking false premises, which result from biased interpretations of observations. Studying the unknown past is fraught with pitfalls. Read The Parable of the Candle.
Then we can glance at the fossil record and see that speciation long predates the presence of humanity which is contrary to your assertion and goes back to very simple organisms. This also brings up the point of how old the Earth is. Concensus is that it's between 4 and 5 billions years old based on examination of rocks from the Earth, Moon, and elsewhere in the Solar System (usually in the form of meteorites). Some creationists claim the Earth is as young as 6,000 years old despite copious evidence to the contrary.
*sigh* This is what I'm talking about. Khallow, you've got to unlearn so much of what you think you know before you can begin to see that our observations are in line with the history that the Holy Bible describes. In fact, they make sense only in light of Biblical accounts. See this article about fast fossils (more at Fossils FAQ).
More it seems the disagreement [between creationists and the ID movement] is in how the argument is pursued.
I think that's it. For Biblical creationists, the Bible is the foremost and clearest authority on how the earth came to be. The waging of a campaign to "fight the good fight" wherein invoking God is taboo and quoting the Bible is off-limits is offensive to some creationists. Moreover, it is seen as possibly being non-productive, as the ultimate goal in creationism is to see more people put their trust in a specific, identifiable, creative God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and accept His gift of salvation that was made possible by sending His Son, the Messiah, to die for our sins on a cross.
Darwin's own cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term [eugenics] and campaigned for using human genetics as a means to breed a superior breed of humanity.
1. Creationists such as myself would not call evolutionism a theory. I would call it a hypothesis; one that must be accepted by faith. Evolutionism is hopeful speculation founded upon naturalist philosophy. It is a Tower of Babel consisting of layers of bricks of faulty conclusions, each set of accepted fallacies giving rise to a new set of fallacies.
Free thought and tough questions, accompanied by sincere, innocent desire for truth, are nourishing water to true religion.
The most heretical questions are followed (after praying, Bible reading, thinking, and discussion with other truth-seekers) by the most glorious, faith-building "A-ha!" moments.
I don't like to say it, but it's the truth. Israeli politicians and media continue to circulate and follow "evil reports." (Shlach) Where's a Joshua or David when you need one?
Slashdot Mirror
Now you understand, in some respect, the anger Americans feel toward the Kyoto Accords.
(not necessarily directed at you, antarctican, but the UN-loving, Gluteus Warming liberals out there)
How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?
What are legislators doing changing my light bulbs?? Are they going to change the toilet tissue rolls and vacuum the floor too? Are we going to have government agents from BATFL (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Lightbulbs) come inspect our houses for compliance?
Whatever the reality, it is slowing down in the media. And at this rate, thirty years from now they'll be reporting that humans are causing global cooling.
But who do we email if we have evidence of news organizations purporting to uncover instances of research being stifled themselves stifling submissions of evidence of journals stifling inconvenient findings on climate research?
I hesitate to point out the obvious, but BBC has a favored side in this debate. The BBC has shown to be untrustworthy on a variety of issues.
Do we know of any mammoth that had a tail like a cedar tree? Elephants have very narrow tails. Furthermore, the behemoth spent significant amount of time in the water and marsh, suggesting possibly an amphibian or reptile. A dinosaur seems to fit the bill.
The latter part of the 40th chapter of the book of Job, especially verse 17a, describes an animal ("behemoth") that does not exist today. By process of elimination of historically considered animals, it seems that the only valid candidate would have to be a dinosaur such as we see in the fossil record.
It is fascinating to read early Bible commentators who struggled to find an animal that fit the Biblical description. At least as early as 1870, some scholars became resigned to the belief that the behemoth beast was an extinct animal. Now, we have constructed models of past animals to look at to give visible substance to our faith. (Not that we needed it, but it doesn't hurt.)
It's not upsetting at all. I took Google Earth back to 3760 BC and confirmed that dry land did not appear until Day 3.
You are what you eat.
Finally, people enjoy the size of the cover art. Cover art died with the CD, a great many people believe that.
No, it didn't. Remember the long boxes CDs used to be packaged in? You can blame the environmentalists for killing cover art. But personally, I never had a great attachment to it.
In combination with his intended message, his death is probably a good lesson to leave nature alone, and that's one of the best environmental messages one can give.
His death is a good lesson for environmentalists not to try to "save the animals," because they are just a bunch of ungrateful bastards! Look at everything Mr. Erwin did for them, and then they murdered him in cold blood. I think the stingrays were insulted that the likes of Steve Erwin think they need to be the protectors of the animal kingdom.
By the way, are the authorities sure he was killed by a stingray and not some other animal? I saw a picture of his injury, and it looked like the result of laser beams. Frickin' laser beams.
On a serious note, I'm sorry he's gone. Condolences to his family.
so if i say to you that osama bin laden believes in god, and justifies what he does in the name of god, does that invalidate or diminish the idea of god in your mind?
Bin Laden worships the god of Muhammad, which has a different character and has very different goals and moral standards from the God of the Holy Bible. Atheists try to lump all gods into one, but they're not the same.
if i believe in idea x (evolution) and i believe in idea y (genocide), the fact that idea y is stupid/ wrong does not automatically mean idea x is stupid/ wrong. nor does it mean that if i believe in idea x, that i must also believe in idea y
Did you read the first line of the first linked page? "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible." - Edward Simon
When Darwin published The origin of species, it pissed off a lot of people.
Yeah, but not everybody. When Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, it did not bother the Nazis at all.
I suspect the reason these people were pissed off is because they can't fathom that new observations means that what they were taught before was wrong, and that the new information gives a better approximation of reality.
You misspelled "fabrications*."
* regarding the first two, which absolutely are not and cannot be observed (seen, watched)
This is the and tags for clothing.
I have seen the answers to most of your questions on the Answers in Genesis site, or in Genesis itself. You can look them up as well as I can. If you really want to know.
According to the Holy Bible, humans are made "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). All other creatures are not.
Preemptive disclaimer: I do not believe that the Elder Testament has been rendered obsolete by the Newer, so please don't accuse me of hypocrisy because I quote it to support my position. Leshanah tovah.
Despite the fossil record?
I should be asking you that question, in response to your profession of evolutionism. The fossil record has had a rocky relationship with evolution (no pun intended), but is a helpful friend to the creationist. It is a great witness to the truth of the Biblical Flood account.
Despite the fact that genetics has showed the close relationship between taxonomically-similar species?
Which is not evidence for evolution.
Despite direct observations of evolution in action?
"Evolution" only by the elimination or rearrangement of genes. Show me where genetic information is increased. (Actually, the evolutionist must begin his progression from a point where there is no DNA at all!) By the way, speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.
Despite the Galapagos finches?
Which do not provide evidence of evolution. In fact, they are evidence for creationism.
In fact, despite all of the evidence supportive of the Theory of Evolution?
In fact, you have failed to show me any so far.
I plan to exercise a little curiosity and humility
That would be nice for a change. Let me know when you begin to implement your plan. :)
and find out a little about the world I'm privileged to live on.
Oops, you slipped. Cosmic privileges are outside the domain of evolutionist/naturalist doctrine, because they are, by definition, benefits granted by an authority. Fortunately, you are (unwittingly) correct. The Creator God has bestowed us the privilege of living on this world.
I'm curious to see why there would be a disconnect between the two groups [creationism and ID].
See the end of my post to another replier.
it has copious interlocking evidence on many different levels supporting the theory. ... Ultimately, what theory best represents the world as we see it?
Interlocking false premises, which result from biased interpretations of observations. Studying the unknown past is fraught with pitfalls. Read The Parable of the Candle.
Then we can glance at the fossil record and see that speciation long predates the presence of humanity which is contrary to your assertion and goes back to very simple organisms. This also brings up the point of how old the Earth is. Concensus is that it's between 4 and 5 billions years old based on examination of rocks from the Earth, Moon, and elsewhere in the Solar System (usually in the form of meteorites). Some creationists claim the Earth is as young as 6,000 years old despite copious evidence to the contrary.
*sigh* This is what I'm talking about. Khallow, you've got to unlearn so much of what you think you know before you can begin to see that our observations are in line with the history that the Holy Bible describes. In fact, they make sense only in light of Biblical accounts. See this article about fast fossils (more at Fossils FAQ).
More it seems the disagreement [between creationists and the ID movement] is in how the argument is pursued.
I think that's it. For Biblical creationists, the Bible is the foremost and clearest authority on how the earth came to be. The waging of a campaign to "fight the good fight" wherein invoking God is taboo and quoting the Bible is off-limits is offensive to some creationists. Moreover, it is seen as possibly being non-productive, as the ultimate goal in creationism is to see more people put their trust in a specific, identifiable, creative God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and accept His gift of salvation that was made possible by sending His Son, the Messiah, to die for our sins on a cross.
Eugenics has nothing to do with the writings of Darwin
From the article:
it always strikes me how pro-lifers don't get that a cow is a hell of a lot more aware of what's going on than a human embryo.
A pro-lifer here... An organism's awareness of what's going on is irrelevant. One is human; the other is not. That's all that matters.
I'll respond to your main points.
1. Creationists such as myself would not call evolutionism a theory. I would call it a hypothesis; one that must be accepted by faith. Evolutionism is hopeful speculation founded upon naturalist philosophy. It is a Tower of Babel consisting of layers of bricks of faulty conclusions, each set of accepted fallacies giving rise to a new set of fallacies.
2. Speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.
3. Many (most?) Biblical creationists are not greatly enthused by the Intelligent Design movement. Some oppose it, although not actively.
Religion is toxic to free thought
Cults are toxic to free thought.
Free thought and tough questions, accompanied by sincere, innocent desire for truth, are nourishing water to true religion.
The most heretical questions are followed (after praying, Bible reading, thinking, and discussion with other truth-seekers) by the most glorious, faith-building "A-ha!" moments.
Darwin's doctrines led to the death by eugenics of millions.
I don't like to say it, but it's the truth. Israeli politicians and media continue to circulate and follow "evil reports." (Shlach) Where's a Joshua or David when you need one?