Two things which make no sense:
1. People call Barack a uniter, when he has NEVER reached across party lines. McCain has teamed with Democrats on many issues but he is a 'divider'.
2. This insane belief that DC controlling everything advances 'freedom and liberty'. A small group of politicians deciding things instead of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers. Instead of making my own choices I am left with one choice every 2 or 4 years.
This is our government educated electorate.
We have a lot more oil here than they do down under, I hate to tell you. We have more in oil shale than in all of Saudi Arabia.
Not to mention only about 15% of our oil comes from the mideast....
Please stop the "war for oil" nonsense/idiocy.
Glad to see its strictly about technology and not party here on slashdot. *rolleyes*
For all the talk of freedom, I fail to see how high taxes and government controlled medical care is freedom OR liberty.
Nowhere in the 80s did the Feds legislate morality. They either made
And the massive defense spending was nothing of the sort, social programs accounted for much more than defense.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Issues/pdfs/Defense.pdf
See the 2nd chart down. Even Bush's 4%(of GDP) military budget is low by historical standards.
That said, the current Admin are no conservatives.
I didn't say any of those things in my post, liar.
Perhaps you can point to the ESR which has produced treatments? Nope, you can't.
Perhaps you can point me at the proof that humans cause warming trends(despite the fact we are in a cooling trend)? Nope you can't.
Removing Saddam doesn't help you, so you don't support it. He funded terrorists but they weren't coming for you so you don't give a rat's ass. Thats bold and courageous, oh wait no it isn't.
Consumers keeping more of their money is a failed economic model? Its called freedom you lemming, and its refreshing to see you admit you oppose it.
Why not check the GDP during the years we had high taxes? Because its too frightening for you to admit government as a mother hen is a ridiculous and infantile ideology.
You are a parrot without an original thought in your head. Go get some more talking points, facts seem to disturb you.
Human caused global warming has only speculation and computer models to back it up-no proof whatsoever.
On top of that the trend is COOLING over the last 10 years or so, so your position is even more foolish.
By evolution I suppose you mean Embryonic stem cell research? No research has been banned, just no federal dollars for a technology which hasn't produced a SINGLE TREATMENT for any condition. Of course its our duty to throw tax dollars down the rathole because it sounds good..
Of course blind devotion to MORE government control and oversight coupled with a health dose of BDS nullifies those fact, huh?
FISA only applies to calls made to or from foreign parties or under control of a foreign power. The F in FISA stands for 'Foreign'. Additionally, the whole process has always been under judicial review.
Telecom immunity is important in this litigation-crazy country we inhabit. Companies should not be held liable for cooperating with the Feds. I know the slashdot stance is anti-business(except perhaps RedHat), but punishing them for following the law is ridiculous.
The opposition is from lawyers and their lobbyists, not some principled stand by the lionized Democrats.
Oh yeah, if you think they will waste money spying on you or Joe Blow up the street you are simply being paranoid.
If you believe the Constitution applies to non-citizens then I think you haven't read it.
In WW2(Battle of the Bulge) we caught a group of Germans fighting out of uniform. They weren't given habeus corpus or sent to Gitmo. They were lined up against a wall and shot.
People fighting out of uniform are not covered by Geneva, and they make it *easier* for regular troops to shoot civilians.
I terrorists attacks will go down once they realize they can use legal manipulation to not only be released, but to get our intelligence used to capture them.
Brilliant.
PS. You calling Scalia crazy is a howler. He understands the law much better than you do.
You have no idea what conservatism is.
Limited government is the ONLY type of government compatible with personal liberty. Period. If you disagree I have millions of dead people who would disagree with you who lived under tyrannical all-controlling governments.
Of course half-wits like yourself don't need historical information, you know everything.
Oh yeah one other thing, Reagan concentrated on the U.S.S.R. and not AIDS(neither was Carter). That doesn't make him a homophobe, but it makes you a partisan hack.
Which killed more AIDS or Communism?
Not only that but it takes 450 pounds of corn to produce a tankful of ethanol.
Incidentally a human eats about 450 pounds of corn per year.
What a boondoggle.
So in your world view, demanding proof for abio-genesis is ignorance, and anyone who doesn't believe that man is the highest form of life is 'sad'.
Deciding that anyone who doesn't believe as you do as 'ignorance' is so clueless and ironic I can't even comment on it. Let me rewrite your last sentence for you: I do not know how to prove it in a lab, therefore X doesn't exist.
Believing in the Bible and Christ isn't ignorance, its faith in things which exist outside our ability to comprehend. Its pure ego and hubris to declare that nothing exists outside your ability to comprehend it.
I am curious, have you made your presence known to the E Coli which inhabit our world? Until you do we don't exist, you know.
"And how can you say that current life's ancestors haven't been found? What is the fossil record then?"
I said the ancestors of E Coli and other simpler organisms. If these precursors were hardy enough to survive and change into everything else, wouldn't there be more record of their existence?
Yes I believe a billion years is far too short to construct something even as complex as E Coli by random chance with the ability to survive, reproduce and adapt. Dawkins agrees, btw.
Obvious fact: The theory of relativity wouldn't have been of great value 5-6000 years ago, genius. The point you missed is that its there in the first chapter and verse.
1. Heat
2. Slime
3. ?????
4. Life
First, if you accept that God exists then he created time so saying he 'waited' to create our observable universe is nonsense.
Second, if creating the simplest of life was by chance WHY can we not reproduce it or even one of its 'ancestors'(which mysteriously have never been found).
Lastly, the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, yet there is evidence of life 3.5 billion years ago. This even further constricts the life sprang from nothing hypothesis. You want to play the 'everything is defined by science' game until it doesn't suit you.
PS. Fun fact: There are three elements in physics time, matter and energy. These are the first three things mentioned in Genesis chapter 1.
He was spoiled rich brat who never worked a day in his life.
Marx also didn't claim that he was the Son of God, nor was his death and resurrection prophesied like Christ's was:
http://www.bartleby.com/108/19/22.html
Christ himself spoked the first verse of this chapter on the cross, it details what happened to him(verse 16) and was written hundreds of years earlier.
Of course I am sure you will chalk it up to 'chance'.
You are right we don't have proof, it also doesn't mean that what is in the Bible isn't true(or that my personal experience means nothing).
Its really a choice isn't it: Do you believe Christ is who he claimed to be or do you believe he was a liar? If you weren't there you must apply faith one way or the other.
In any event there is no evidence for abiogeneis, and yet it is peddled as science. Odd that you have no problem with this.
Even Dawkins admits that life could not have just magically appeared, so I am not sure whose side you are on in that argument.
The proof is Christ, a living being who lived here 2000 years ago. Whose humble life changed the course of human history(and the Roman empire).
No it isn't logical that a cell can be created by chance. If you believe so I would add you have no idea what you are talking about.
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/crutches.html
You can attempt to insult me but you still have no proof whatsoever. If it is science you must have some...
By the way, what is hilarious is the downmodding to hide my post. Ben Stein's movie is about silencing people with whom you disagree.
Abio-genesis isn't science either so I guess we should stop teaching that too, huh?
You claim ID has no proof(when in fact the complexity of it IS proof), but there is not even even ONE reproducible example of life from lifeless matter.
There are theories but 'life just happened' it illogical on its face.
If you are working on something and you mess up, you can start again where you left off. *Chance* doesn't work that way, the life form must be sustaining and reproduce the first time. If it dies its back to square one.
Understanding this the 'random chance' theory is even more illogical. Only blind faith in it would make it less so.
How about, which do you believe:
1. A group of scientists with absolutely no explanation for any origin of life. These same scientists cannot make even the beginnings of abio-genesis occur in a lab. They also have absolutely no explanations of how life formed on this planet only 1 billion years after it formed.
2. Belief in a higher power, which actually makes much more logical sense than "it just happened" theory above. This is strongly confirmed in the one human who rose from the dead, and whose humble life changed the Roman empire and the rest of human history.
The magic soup theory is funnier each time I hear it. If it is 'settled science' please post for me some lab reproducible examples of it.
Too bad that argument has zero real, you know, falsifiable evidence.
We know C02 levels coincide with increases in temperature, but as any good scientist will admit correlation != causation.
Of course Al Gore is making a pretty good living off of this garbage.
In 10 years this 'man made global warming' crap will be laughed at in favor of the next big scare.
Since the eye is so poorly designed, why haven't we made a replacement yet?
Also where is the evidence it formed at all? Wouldn't there be lesser formed eyes elsewhere? How about when major species diverge, say insect and mammal, why did both develop basically the SAME eye?
Your point is 'both are theories but theory X sounds better to me than theory Y, so theory X is science'.
I hate to break it to you but that isn't science.
PS. I am glad you aren't an American, too.
No one denies that at some point life appeared on this planet. Nor has any Christian I have ever met said that gradual changes over time were not occurring.
Intelligent Design is about *creation*. The idea is a higher entity began the process with each of the major species. Unless you have a time machine you can no more *prove* that sludge + time = Higher life forms than Christians can prove a higher power was at work.
Its more like republicans not throwing taxpayer money at things the Federal government has NO BUSINESS doing.
Embryonic stem cell research = ZERO breakthroughs yet we must use MY money to fund it...
Human caused global warming = ZERO evidence outside computer models, however the 'science is settled'.
Evolution as origins of life = ZERO lab reproducible results of abiogenesis, however it too is 'scientific fact'.
Who is anti science again?
Slashdot Mirror
Two things which make no sense:
1. People call Barack a uniter, when he has NEVER reached across party lines. McCain has teamed with Democrats on many issues but he is a 'divider'.
2. This insane belief that DC controlling everything advances 'freedom and liberty'. A small group of politicians deciding things instead of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers. Instead of making my own choices I am left with one choice every 2 or 4 years.
This is our government educated electorate.
We have a lot more oil here than they do down under, I hate to tell you. We have more in oil shale than in all of Saudi Arabia. Not to mention only about 15% of our oil comes from the mideast.... Please stop the "war for oil" nonsense/idiocy.
Obama's positions are much closer to these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
than McCain.
Lesser of two imbeciles.
http://news.google.com/news?q=ACORN&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn Down modded of course, because the sniveling slash-dotters can't have anyone suggest the Democrats are more crooked than the Republicans.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/10/232336.shtml
Glad to see its strictly about technology and not party here on slashdot. *rolleyes*
For all the talk of freedom, I fail to see how high taxes and government controlled medical care is freedom OR liberty.
Nowhere in the 80s did the Feds legislate morality. They either made And the massive defense spending was nothing of the sort, social programs accounted for much more than defense. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Issues/pdfs/Defense.pdf See the 2nd chart down. Even Bush's 4%(of GDP) military budget is low by historical standards. That said, the current Admin are no conservatives.
I didn't say any of those things in my post, liar.
Perhaps you can point to the ESR which has produced treatments? Nope, you can't.
Perhaps you can point me at the proof that humans cause warming trends(despite the fact we are in a cooling trend)? Nope you can't.
Removing Saddam doesn't help you, so you don't support it. He funded terrorists but they weren't coming for you so you don't give a rat's ass. Thats bold and courageous, oh wait no it isn't.
Consumers keeping more of their money is a failed economic model? Its called freedom you lemming, and its refreshing to see you admit you oppose it.
Why not check the GDP during the years we had high taxes? Because its too frightening for you to admit government as a mother hen is a ridiculous and infantile ideology.
You are a parrot without an original thought in your head. Go get some more talking points, facts seem to disturb you.
Human caused global warming has only speculation and computer models to back it up-no proof whatsoever. On top of that the trend is COOLING over the last 10 years or so, so your position is even more foolish. By evolution I suppose you mean Embryonic stem cell research? No research has been banned, just no federal dollars for a technology which hasn't produced a SINGLE TREATMENT for any condition. Of course its our duty to throw tax dollars down the rathole because it sounds good.. Of course blind devotion to MORE government control and oversight coupled with a health dose of BDS nullifies those fact, huh?
FISA only applies to calls made to or from foreign parties or under control of a foreign power. The F in FISA stands for 'Foreign'. Additionally, the whole process has always been under judicial review. Telecom immunity is important in this litigation-crazy country we inhabit. Companies should not be held liable for cooperating with the Feds. I know the slashdot stance is anti-business(except perhaps RedHat), but punishing them for following the law is ridiculous. The opposition is from lawyers and their lobbyists, not some principled stand by the lionized Democrats. Oh yeah, if you think they will waste money spying on you or Joe Blow up the street you are simply being paranoid.
If you believe the Constitution applies to non-citizens then I think you haven't read it.
In WW2(Battle of the Bulge) we caught a group of Germans fighting out of uniform. They weren't given habeus corpus or sent to Gitmo. They were lined up against a wall and shot.
People fighting out of uniform are not covered by Geneva, and they make it *easier* for regular troops to shoot civilians. I terrorists attacks will go down once they realize they can use legal manipulation to not only be released, but to get our intelligence used to capture them.
Brilliant.
PS. You calling Scalia crazy is a howler. He understands the law much better than you do.
You have no idea what conservatism is. Limited government is the ONLY type of government compatible with personal liberty. Period. If you disagree I have millions of dead people who would disagree with you who lived under tyrannical all-controlling governments. Of course half-wits like yourself don't need historical information, you know everything. Oh yeah one other thing, Reagan concentrated on the U.S.S.R. and not AIDS(neither was Carter). That doesn't make him a homophobe, but it makes you a partisan hack. Which killed more AIDS or Communism?
Not only that but it takes 450 pounds of corn to produce a tankful of ethanol. Incidentally a human eats about 450 pounds of corn per year. What a boondoggle.
So in your world view, demanding proof for abio-genesis is ignorance, and anyone who doesn't believe that man is the highest form of life is 'sad'. Deciding that anyone who doesn't believe as you do as 'ignorance' is so clueless and ironic I can't even comment on it. Let me rewrite your last sentence for you: I do not know how to prove it in a lab, therefore X doesn't exist. Believing in the Bible and Christ isn't ignorance, its faith in things which exist outside our ability to comprehend. Its pure ego and hubris to declare that nothing exists outside your ability to comprehend it. I am curious, have you made your presence known to the E Coli which inhabit our world? Until you do we don't exist, you know.
"And how can you say that current life's ancestors haven't been found? What is the fossil record then?" I said the ancestors of E Coli and other simpler organisms. If these precursors were hardy enough to survive and change into everything else, wouldn't there be more record of their existence? Yes I believe a billion years is far too short to construct something even as complex as E Coli by random chance with the ability to survive, reproduce and adapt. Dawkins agrees, btw. Obvious fact: The theory of relativity wouldn't have been of great value 5-6000 years ago, genius. The point you missed is that its there in the first chapter and verse. 1. Heat 2. Slime 3. ????? 4. Life
First, if you accept that God exists then he created time so saying he 'waited' to create our observable universe is nonsense. Second, if creating the simplest of life was by chance WHY can we not reproduce it or even one of its 'ancestors'(which mysteriously have never been found). Lastly, the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, yet there is evidence of life 3.5 billion years ago. This even further constricts the life sprang from nothing hypothesis. You want to play the 'everything is defined by science' game until it doesn't suit you. PS. Fun fact: There are three elements in physics time, matter and energy. These are the first three things mentioned in Genesis chapter 1.
He was spoiled rich brat who never worked a day in his life. Marx also didn't claim that he was the Son of God, nor was his death and resurrection prophesied like Christ's was: http://www.bartleby.com/108/19/22.html Christ himself spoked the first verse of this chapter on the cross, it details what happened to him(verse 16) and was written hundreds of years earlier. Of course I am sure you will chalk it up to 'chance'.
You are right we don't have proof, it also doesn't mean that what is in the Bible isn't true(or that my personal experience means nothing). Its really a choice isn't it: Do you believe Christ is who he claimed to be or do you believe he was a liar? If you weren't there you must apply faith one way or the other. In any event there is no evidence for abiogeneis, and yet it is peddled as science. Odd that you have no problem with this. Even Dawkins admits that life could not have just magically appeared, so I am not sure whose side you are on in that argument.
The proof is Christ, a living being who lived here 2000 years ago. Whose humble life changed the course of human history(and the Roman empire). No it isn't logical that a cell can be created by chance. If you believe so I would add you have no idea what you are talking about. http://www.direct.ca/trinity/crutches.html You can attempt to insult me but you still have no proof whatsoever. If it is science you must have some... By the way, what is hilarious is the downmodding to hide my post. Ben Stein's movie is about silencing people with whom you disagree.
Abio-genesis isn't science either so I guess we should stop teaching that too, huh? You claim ID has no proof(when in fact the complexity of it IS proof), but there is not even even ONE reproducible example of life from lifeless matter. There are theories but 'life just happened' it illogical on its face. If you are working on something and you mess up, you can start again where you left off. *Chance* doesn't work that way, the life form must be sustaining and reproduce the first time. If it dies its back to square one. Understanding this the 'random chance' theory is even more illogical. Only blind faith in it would make it less so.
How about, which do you believe: 1. A group of scientists with absolutely no explanation for any origin of life. These same scientists cannot make even the beginnings of abio-genesis occur in a lab. They also have absolutely no explanations of how life formed on this planet only 1 billion years after it formed. 2. Belief in a higher power, which actually makes much more logical sense than "it just happened" theory above. This is strongly confirmed in the one human who rose from the dead, and whose humble life changed the Roman empire and the rest of human history. The magic soup theory is funnier each time I hear it. If it is 'settled science' please post for me some lab reproducible examples of it.
Too bad that argument has zero real, you know, falsifiable evidence. We know C02 levels coincide with increases in temperature, but as any good scientist will admit correlation != causation. Of course Al Gore is making a pretty good living off of this garbage. In 10 years this 'man made global warming' crap will be laughed at in favor of the next big scare.
Since the eye is so poorly designed, why haven't we made a replacement yet? Also where is the evidence it formed at all? Wouldn't there be lesser formed eyes elsewhere? How about when major species diverge, say insect and mammal, why did both develop basically the SAME eye? Your point is 'both are theories but theory X sounds better to me than theory Y, so theory X is science'. I hate to break it to you but that isn't science. PS. I am glad you aren't an American, too.
No one denies that at some point life appeared on this planet. Nor has any Christian I have ever met said that gradual changes over time were not occurring. Intelligent Design is about *creation*. The idea is a higher entity began the process with each of the major species. Unless you have a time machine you can no more *prove* that sludge + time = Higher life forms than Christians can prove a higher power was at work.
Its more like republicans not throwing taxpayer money at things the Federal government has NO BUSINESS doing. Embryonic stem cell research = ZERO breakthroughs yet we must use MY money to fund it... Human caused global warming = ZERO evidence outside computer models, however the 'science is settled'. Evolution as origins of life = ZERO lab reproducible results of abiogenesis, however it too is 'scientific fact'. Who is anti science again?