The moment I read this, I realized it wasn't what they said. Obviously, they KNOW the "Liberator" is safe. So why lie? They were trying to scare others from doing this themselves.
I do note that you prefer insulting someone who disagrees with you to actually having a reasoned response to the points that the person disagrees with. Food from the Civil War? Pfftht! You're on the hook for 47,000,000 years, not 147. Try again with more science, less anger.
Because "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" is like a government test, not a science test. Contradict that and fail the interview, so to speak. Everyone knows the "right" answer to that one. Meanwhile, most "religious" people I know are MUCH more science educated than others for the simple reason of having so many disagree with them that they end up needing to do their homework . . . a thing too many simply refuse to do. Looking at the other half of the data? Why would I waste my time doing that when I'm already right?
Yep. The "quick fix" becomes permanent for 1 reason: teach can control the thermostat. I've worked in both building and portable and the portables ALWAYS smell funky.
I continue to be amazed at the blindness of these life-by-incremental-changes folk. Found within THIS set of rock strata or with THESE fossils = 47,000,000 years old, never mind that we found organic material still organic, still intact with it. More willing to say organic material won't decompose over 47,000,000 years than willing to say our dating methods need re-thinking.
Couldn't possibly be 47,000 years, oh no, not at all. 4,700 years? Don't be thilly!
"Put more bluntly, 'Does the human brain have similar built-in errors?'"
Hoo boy, yes. After working in education a couple of decades, this 1 fact I've seen in almost every student and in many of the teachers, as well (most of us know how to hide this glitch, but not always.)
My favorite was the Kantian notion that the universe is infinte, and therefore allows for all the space and all the time for life-by-incremental-changes to occur. A. Einstein had to point out the obvious: all things moving away from a point = a beginning = a beginner.
I would really like my government to stop throwing money on these ridiculous gambles that their pagan spontaneous-life-by-water conceit might actually find some evidence somewhere in the universe. There isn't any here, that's for sure.
Firefox usage #'s are down because that browser stopped being meaningfully independent like Chrome or Sea Monkey or Pale Moon are. The last time I used Firefox, I got pop-ups like a really good I.E. How 'bout they fix that problem instead of augment them?
I agree. I'm an overt Christian and will respond to overtly ridiculous athesit/humanist claims, insisting the claimants prove it . . . because they cannot. I get lots of negative feedback for not toeing their party line and that not at all deters me because I know the science--the actual totality of the scientific research--disproves them and their negativity is merely igorance of the other half of the data. I respond not at all to the ones who don't respond to me, so the suggestions to merely ignore would definitely shorten these conversations.
I found this to be exactly true in my pedaling around supposedly civic-minded Claremont: the more time I spent at an intersection, the more time some other driver had to catch up to me, not see me, and then cut me off in the driver's haste to be elsewhere. I wasn't running a stop sign; I was getting out of Doofus Driver's way.
"teaching 'one view of what is not settled science about global warming'" is EXACTLY the problem. These so-called "scientists" (religious extremists) should earn the label "scientist" and admit they don't know everything and they're conclusions are mere probability, not certainty. Instead, we get these people teaching it like I would inist God is real, and being angry at anyone who has the unmitigated gall to disagree (of which there are many.)
What I call the "suffering quotient": if 1 person dies, that 1 unkonwn person's death is largely ignored. If 50 or 100 die, we might do something about preventing the next accident (we might not.) Conversely, if a famous person dies, we pay attention and deal with the problem that killed our celebrity. We need to get some famous people killed by these crude oil spills or nothing will be done.
Obviously because writing involves the kinesthetic as well as auditory learning. The rule is is that you don't konw what you hear or see, but only what you DO. Writing (not typing) is DOING something with the knowledge, and that's what's remembered.
God did the same thing with a "5,000,000,000" year old earth: let us believe that malarkey, then hands us additional evidence folks had been willfully ignoring to slice years off that. The whole doctrine of life-by-incremental-changes was predicated on having (at least) 5,000,000,000 years. Now we've 500,000,000, maybe. But the ridiculous belief that required so much more isn't dumped. Aren't humans weird?
Isn't that the place that punked National Geographic with that other "missing link" fossil a couple decades ago? Why are we to think they aren't pulling the same scam. Then there's the repeatedly demonstrated gullibility of evolutionists over the last century. This is not news; this is tragic deception. I have a better idea: let's have these people HOLD THEIR OPINION for the complete data.
Duplicating all pagan religions. They start with water because Genesis starts with the Holy Spirit hovering over the water. The obvious implication is that this is the point when Lucifer was created and he decided at that point that both he and God came out of that water there. The reason this is ridiculous is that it ignores Crick's, Franklin's, and Watson's work proving the mind-boggling complexity of life that could never be duplicated but by a mind-boggling intelligence. "Random processes"? Any randomly assembled amino acid randomly disassembles as well; even Miller proved that. This is our tax dollars being spent on a national religion.
No it doen't. " For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says.... " That's what we call circular reasoning. Your argument is literally invalid for tripping over the common-to-"scientists"-lately fallacy of using the conclusion for the premise.
If it does, there never was a faith there to begin with. What happens STRENGTHENS what's there, in these cases, that the person thinks more of other humans' opinions than of God's. "One with God is a majority" (Martin Luther.) The Internet has shown me how crucial is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord as I've seen how lost and darkened is the thinking of so many people ("water is complex"? really? Is that what passes for "science" now?)
"religious ignorance" = you are the ignorant one: the first to use the insults loses.
Fact is, there is no evidence of life-by-incremental-changes. Darwin RAILED against jumps but there it is: life with neither the time nor the ability to exist. Instead of insulting those who choose to not repeat unproven theories (i.e., lies), commend them for thinking for themselves instead of believing what everyone else says.
Slashdot Mirror
It couldn't possibly be that the skull was designed to protect the brain, oh no.
The moment I read this, I realized it wasn't what they said. Obviously, they KNOW the "Liberator" is safe. So why lie? They were trying to scare others from doing this themselves.
I do note that you prefer insulting someone who disagrees with you to actually having a reasoned response to the points that the person disagrees with. Food from the Civil War? Pfftht! You're on the hook for 47,000,000 years, not 147. Try again with more science, less anger.
Because "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" is like a government test, not a science test. Contradict that and fail the interview, so to speak. Everyone knows the "right" answer to that one. Meanwhile, most "religious" people I know are MUCH more science educated than others for the simple reason of having so many disagree with them that they end up needing to do their homework . . . a thing too many simply refuse to do. Looking at the other half of the data? Why would I waste my time doing that when I'm already right?
Yep. The "quick fix" becomes permanent for 1 reason: teach can control the thermostat. I've worked in both building and portable and the portables ALWAYS smell funky.
I continue to be amazed at the blindness of these life-by-incremental-changes folk. Found within THIS set of rock strata or with THESE fossils = 47,000,000 years old, never mind that we found organic material still organic, still intact with it. More willing to say organic material won't decompose over 47,000,000 years than willing to say our dating methods need re-thinking. Couldn't possibly be 47,000 years, oh no, not at all. 4,700 years? Don't be thilly!
"Put more bluntly, 'Does the human brain have similar built-in errors?'" Hoo boy, yes. After working in education a couple of decades, this 1 fact I've seen in almost every student and in many of the teachers, as well (most of us know how to hide this glitch, but not always.)
My favorite was the Kantian notion that the universe is infinte, and therefore allows for all the space and all the time for life-by-incremental-changes to occur. A. Einstein had to point out the obvious: all things moving away from a point = a beginning = a beginner.
The California legislature doing the right thing? Since when? 1977?
I would really like my government to stop throwing money on these ridiculous gambles that their pagan spontaneous-life-by-water conceit might actually find some evidence somewhere in the universe. There isn't any here, that's for sure.
Firefox usage #'s are down because that browser stopped being meaningfully independent like Chrome or Sea Monkey or Pale Moon are. The last time I used Firefox, I got pop-ups like a really good I.E. How 'bout they fix that problem instead of augment them?
I agree. I'm an overt Christian and will respond to overtly ridiculous athesit/humanist claims, insisting the claimants prove it . . . because they cannot. I get lots of negative feedback for not toeing their party line and that not at all deters me because I know the science--the actual totality of the scientific research--disproves them and their negativity is merely igorance of the other half of the data. I respond not at all to the ones who don't respond to me, so the suggestions to merely ignore would definitely shorten these conversations.
Do like schools and get a steel case to bolt the equipment to the furniture. Steal the computer? Only if you're able to walk out with the entire desk.
1970's TV series, "Here Come the Brides" about Seattle. Isn't it time for a reboot?
I found this to be exactly true in my pedaling around supposedly civic-minded Claremont: the more time I spent at an intersection, the more time some other driver had to catch up to me, not see me, and then cut me off in the driver's haste to be elsewhere. I wasn't running a stop sign; I was getting out of Doofus Driver's way.
"teaching 'one view of what is not settled science about global warming'" is EXACTLY the problem. These so-called "scientists" (religious extremists) should earn the label "scientist" and admit they don't know everything and they're conclusions are mere probability, not certainty. Instead, we get these people teaching it like I would inist God is real, and being angry at anyone who has the unmitigated gall to disagree (of which there are many.)
What I call the "suffering quotient": if 1 person dies, that 1 unkonwn person's death is largely ignored. If 50 or 100 die, we might do something about preventing the next accident (we might not.) Conversely, if a famous person dies, we pay attention and deal with the problem that killed our celebrity. We need to get some famous people killed by these crude oil spills or nothing will be done.
Obviously because writing involves the kinesthetic as well as auditory learning. The rule is is that you don't konw what you hear or see, but only what you DO. Writing (not typing) is DOING something with the knowledge, and that's what's remembered.
God did the same thing with a "5,000,000,000" year old earth: let us believe that malarkey, then hands us additional evidence folks had been willfully ignoring to slice years off that. The whole doctrine of life-by-incremental-changes was predicated on having (at least) 5,000,000,000 years. Now we've 500,000,000, maybe. But the ridiculous belief that required so much more isn't dumped. Aren't humans weird?
Then the NSA wouldn't even need to ask to snoop on all Internet traffic exactly as the CHP needn't ask to drive up to my house, peer in my windows.
Isn't that the place that punked National Geographic with that other "missing link" fossil a couple decades ago? Why are we to think they aren't pulling the same scam. Then there's the repeatedly demonstrated gullibility of evolutionists over the last century. This is not news; this is tragic deception. I have a better idea: let's have these people HOLD THEIR OPINION for the complete data.
Duplicating all pagan religions. They start with water because Genesis starts with the Holy Spirit hovering over the water. The obvious implication is that this is the point when Lucifer was created and he decided at that point that both he and God came out of that water there. The reason this is ridiculous is that it ignores Crick's, Franklin's, and Watson's work proving the mind-boggling complexity of life that could never be duplicated but by a mind-boggling intelligence. "Random processes"? Any randomly assembled amino acid randomly disassembles as well; even Miller proved that. This is our tax dollars being spent on a national religion.
No it doen't. " For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. ... " That's what we call circular reasoning. Your argument is literally invalid for tripping over the common-to-"scientists"-lately fallacy of using the conclusion for the premise.
If it does, there never was a faith there to begin with. What happens STRENGTHENS what's there, in these cases, that the person thinks more of other humans' opinions than of God's. "One with God is a majority" (Martin Luther.) The Internet has shown me how crucial is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord as I've seen how lost and darkened is the thinking of so many people ("water is complex"? really? Is that what passes for "science" now?)
"religious ignorance" = you are the ignorant one: the first to use the insults loses. Fact is, there is no evidence of life-by-incremental-changes. Darwin RAILED against jumps but there it is: life with neither the time nor the ability to exist. Instead of insulting those who choose to not repeat unproven theories (i.e., lies), commend them for thinking for themselves instead of believing what everyone else says.