I urge everyone to go out and sample real haggis - it is freaking awesome, especially with a good single malt whisky.
I had a Scottish friend a few years back that told me Haggis was a big joke the Scots played on the English. "No true Scotsman would eat Haggis!" He exclaimed, "But any good Scotsman wants to see the look on an Englishman's face when he's chomping down on that kind of crap in the name of culture!"
In Utah, the only legal union is the teachers union. This union thrives by taking money that is going to education, spending it on itself, and then using the last crust to buy what books it can. The next year, it exclaims "We don't have enough money! Look at how few books are in the school libraries!" -- this political stint to get more money for a greedy union uses the students as a shameless sacrifice.
Unions can be neccessary when it comes to claiming a worker's fair rights, however they are also dangerous. If these unions require dues, government money, have union representatives who get paid to represent the union, etc., then the bloodsuckers of humanity will find ways to infiltrate the unions, climb to the top, and become ruiners of their industry. At the top of almost any longstanding union, you will find someone who has become just the tyrant they were claiming to overthrow -- just like in Animal Farm. Pigs will be pigs, and unions give them a very easy place to be very powerful pigs.
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.
Considering the damages caused by the crime, $500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment. Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, that should be taken into account -- it's a bad law.
Go ahead and mod me down you ignorant bastard. Touch yourself while you do it. It's the closest you can come to bringing an argument against it. You may deem me an idiot, but inso doing, you claim that a mere idiot brought your indestructible ivory tower, built by your century's greatest non-idiots, to rubble.
Continue to delude yourself with thought experiments while reality and logic scream at your door. Watch as the sun dances around the earth, and the galaxy around the sun in the impressive, embarrasing reality you've constructed for yourself. History will see you for what you are -- another chump that bought into a propped-up theory because he didn't want to have to go to sunday school anymore. It won't remember me for anything, because I was just some random guy who stopped to point out the obvious.
After Nintendo's success with the Wii, I'm not surprised they would go for such an embarrassing name for their product. I'm just nervous about where the future is taking us.
Actually, I did address the ridiculous rationalization of "T-rex useless limbs are perfect candidate for wings" as what it is -- rationalization and just ANOTHER trillion-to-one shot THAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE BIRDS! It's ridiculous. The sooner you see it for what it is, you will thank me for pointing it out to you.
You haven't stated one thing wrong with my theory. You refuse to state that my theory is statistically, without hyperbole, hundreds of billions of times more likely than yours -- for EACH species of bird that exists. You cannot refute it because you don't know your own theory better than I do. You do what you are trained to do -- tell me I don't understand it and call it a day. Guess what? You're wrong on two counts: I do understand it, and you're theory is still a rotted egg with holes punched through it.
If you had any SHRED of care for actual science in you, you would THANK me for finding something wrong with the theory. No no no... instead of going into a room where you had stored a mouse you were planning on killing only to find a snake (and no mouse in sight), you insist on telling me that a solar flare probably caused the mouse's DNA to rearrange and become a snake, and that my theory that the snake ate the mouse, as we see commonly in nature, is Stupid because I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR RETARDED THEORY. I do understand your theory and since you cannot refute mine with reason, you reduce yourself to a slavery, wimpering, drooling, brainwashed appliance only capable of telling me I don't understand. That is what YOU don't understand about your theory.
I didn't say that humans and modern chickens were all born at the same time as the dinosaurs. I just said that dinos didn't give birth to humans and chickens. How do new animals come to be on our planet? I don't know. Simply because I've found things I find inexcusably wrong with the existing theory does not mean I've come up with a solid origin story for the new species we uncover every year. I just did the easy part. The hard part would take me much longer to work on, and I'd probably have to start a new line of work.
It's their culture. They are all Robin Hood. Rob from the rich, and give to the poor (themselves). Just ask them, and that's what they'll matter-of-fact tell you.
If you want to discuss evolution with me, you must accept that I understand it just as well as you do.
Every thing you say demonstrates that this is simply not true.
The only difference between my understanding and yours is that I understand that it is wrong. When I describe it, I won't use rationalization, long-shots, conjecture, and attempted philosophy to attempt to support it. I won't weasel around things trying to find something, ANYTHING to connect point A to point B. Simply because it can be explained in a trillion-to-one shot does not make it plausible, likely, or the truth.
When I describe the current theory of evolution, I describe it for the fraud it is. I look past the beauty marks and describe the warts. You can exclaim that those are understood to be beauty marks, and I'll say they're still a bunch of ugly, infected warts. You might pull up the latest conjecture from some philosophy student's book on evolution -- and say that my understanding is missing the mark, that my understanding is misunderstanding. This is dangerous because then you don't listen to a single word I say. You read through paragraphs of simple, reasonable, observation-based explanation of why you are wrong, and by the end, all you've heard is yourself saying "LA LA LA LA LA HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND MY THEORY SO HE'S NOT TALKING TO ME!" You close your mind up like a brainwashed zealot, not because you are a bad, science-hating person, but because that's what evolutions proponents have taught you to do with their rats mazes of explanations. If this is how you view evolution in your mind: 'It is something that no one who disagrees with it can possibly understand as well as I do', then you will never be able to have a constructive dialogue on evolution. Never. Consider yourself direly warned.
I haven't convinced myself that it is truth through years of indoctrination that our school and science programs have all set themselves about propogating. For you, the faith in evolution is as strong as the faith that the turning of the earth will show this hemisphere to the sun tomorrow, just as it did today. You have to ask yourself: Is it healthy for me to put such faith in something that is described as a 16-trillion-to-one chance on the optimistic side?
In either case, to be fair, you must cede that my theory is just as strong, if not stronger, than yours. In the beginning of this discussion, everyone took me to be an idiot with a mindless, silly theory. Now, I hope, only most of you do.
I can feel myself going on an evolution rant, so I will stop now. Just remember that hunches and wild theories mean nothing without valid, peer reviewed evidence. I will gladly take science over guessing games.
Sadly, the supporting arguments for evolution are rationalization, conjecture, manipulation, and "You don't know evolution, and that's why you disagree with it" bullocks. If you want to discuss evolution with me, you must accept that I understand it just as well as you do. I've read all the manipulative literature that you have. I've seen the documentaries, articles, and heard the dialogues. If you can convince yourself that dinosaurs evolved from their glorious forms into birds from the time of their last fossils until the time of the first bird fossils, then you must understand what you look like from my point of view -- as I've quite certainly heard enough from yours.
Pretend for an instant that the fossil records we have are correct -- that the big dinosaurs were killed off. Pretend for an instant that what we see in our modern-day rainforests, savannahs, wetlands, and great plains (extinction of races, not evolution) might have happened BEFORE such phenomena were so easily observable. Pretend that having your most vocal advocates commonly employ the strategy of using unrelated [and unobserved] case studies to patch together their framework of groupthink-enforced manipulation -- might not be convincing to people who don't think like you do. Can you pretend these 3 things, and then tell me, with a straight face, that any of what you say is believable -- I'll have to find myself in disagreement.
Let me put it this way.
Scientifically, we can and have observed that species go extinct without evolving.
Scientifically, we can and have observed that when one species goes extinct, many other species can be discovered that have no relation to the original species. Some of these may even share what were once believed to be unique traits with the now-expired species.
Analytically, we can deduce the CHANCES that dinosaurs would simply have evolved in what they would view as their own prey in anticipation of a global catastrophe caused by an intercelestial object as approaching zero. Simply because the dinosaurs are all gone and the birds are all here does NOT support the theory that all the dinosaurs of a certain order decided to up and give birth to birds. The chances that one dinosaur species might evolve into a bird? Extremely, ridiculously, incalculably, and most importantly, UNOBSERVEDLY slim. That 20 species within an order would all evolve similarly into 20 species of birds, thereafter to propogate into hundreds of thousands of species of birds, leaving no forks that shared traits with crocodiles, lizards, and other creatures of inferior make that went without change while these seemed to completely overhaul their entire biological structure? The chances flatline at 0.
If you really want to dance this dance, and argue with me that you are more likely to be right than I am when I say that they died out, not evolved into avians, then you're wrong. You are not more likely to be correct. Natural observations and fossil records are on my side. You have one-in-a-trillion shots, inference, and narrative on yours. Scientifically, I do claim the scientific highground in the name of simple observational science. If you wish to file counterclaim for it, you'd better understand that you aren't arguing with an idiot, or someone who understands evolution any less than you. I'm not using rhetoric, long-shots, guesswork, or unobserved phenomena. I'm saying what happens to hundreds, if not thousands, of species every year happened 60 million years ago. Whatever theory you come up with to disagree with me must be scientifically persuasive enough to disagrees with a theory based on that common, observed FACT of nature... more simply put -- everything dies -- not a theory based upon another theory that was based on the observations on how animals alter, during the course of their lives, to adapt to their environments -- and maybe dinosaurs learned to fly and became chickens.
you don't seem to argue against it becoming a tiny proportion of it's former size, but you think it impossible that it's pectoral muscles could have enlarged in more than 100 million years? What the crap?
I know how to pick my battles. T-rexes did not go from wimpy arms to the most powerful arms of the animal kingdom, (while shrinking and growing feathers), just because one T-rex, from their future, jumped into a time machine and told them they were going to get wiped out in 100 million years if they didn't start working out their useless foreclaws. If anything, the theory of evolution would say they would have lost their arms during this period of great change. If you are a reasonable man, you can see that this proves the algorithm put forth by the current evolution theorists to be greviously incorrect. You can argue that "their useless arms were the PERFECT candidate for wings, because they weren't being used for anything else!" but that's more rationalization than rationality -- wings are an extremely long and arduous road for evolution to begin sprouting for 100 million years with no immediate reason or intent -- especially when the T-rex, like the alligator, spider, or shark, was likely comfortable at the top of his food chain and therefore had no reason to evolve for another half-billion years, much less to evolve into something LOWER on the food chain.
Citation to a peer reviewed article or it didn't happen
In 20 or 50 years you'll still be as wrong as you are today
You see, my friends? I do not entertain your wild theory, though it has just the mildest scientific backing, and therefore I must be wrong. Am I wrong? You have no (as in zero) absolute grounds on which to say so. What is more likely -- that T-rexes went extinct or that their offspring are our common birds? I say they went extinct. You say they became birds. Perhaps I am wrong, but for you to say that I am wrong, without proof or review - yet claiming a scientific highground, is worse than wrong. In reality, you are spurning science rather than nurturing it. The search for truth isn't as important to you as the fact that those who disagree with you must not be accepted.
I'm quite sure that I am right. I think that T-rexes did die off. I think that they didn't become birds. My theory is fundamentally more likely, more practical, and matches fossil and observation records better than yours. Do you really want to say that I'm W.R.O.N.G. and that you are right?
And as for the "common ancestor" thing, yes, I'm aware of the argument. It's what came about when neanderthals were no longer considered our ancestors. Then it was moved back to chimps. Now, it's been moved back to some tiger-lemur-looking thing. Is that the argument? That a tiger-lemur-looking thing is our grandparent, because it's not a chimp? Since you were wrong the last 20 times you found an ancestor, that you've found it this time, and everyone who disagrees with you is an elementary-school-level stooge? Not buying it. As I said, I'll happily meet you at the truth, that is, if it doesn't disagree so much with the biological crusade of "monkey is my grandpa" that you refuse to accept it when it's uncovered. Until then, you can continue to think of me as a religious nutjob or whatever you guys are trained into believing all your detractors are.
Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern? At least with all that lithium around, depression should be a thing of the past!
Great, along with lithium's side effect of "decreased sperm motility", you can cue the conspiracy theorists that the government is funding a population-control device.
I think the whole "dinosaurs evolved into chickens" things is rather silly. Exhibit A: Alligators and sharks. They were around the same time as T-rex. They may have shrunk, but that's about it. Exhibit B: Birds. They do not have useless forearms. In fact, in order to fly, their wings (they have these instead of arms, you see) must be powered by incredibly strong muscles. Even if humans had wings, our pectorals are all simply too wimpy for us to even lift ourselves off the ground. Withered, useless claws would not power up the beefy torso needed for a T-rex to lift itself off the ground.
So what about this "collagen" evidence? Easy. The T-rex ate enough birds that it got bird collagen to fill in its bones. Check out the sea slugs that eat enough algea to photosynthesize. There were T-rexes, there were dinosaurs with feathers, there were delicious birds.
Feel free to call me stupid in the face of your pithy evidences, but in 10, 20, or 50 years (however long it takes), I'll continue to say the same thing (and be right), and you'll say "Well, the facts have shown that our original theories were incorrect, so we've modified our theories, and it's ok, because that's what science does, but you were still a moron when you disagreed with our incorrect-but-widely-believed theory!" -- worse than religious nutjobs you are. (Oh, and parent poster, when I say "you", I'm speaking in the general "you people who disagree with me and my theory of 'T-rexes were too awesome to have stupid bird babies'") Just like with chimps. Latest evidence (findings published last fall, I believe?) shows we didn't evolve from chimps, but everyone who believed in the chimp-is-my-grandpa theory is still right/was always right, and everyone who said "I don't think chimp is my grandpa" was wrong, is wrong, and is an idiot, aren't they?
Well, when it finally finds us, I'll meet you at the truth. Until then, I propose a philosophical, rhetorical question: would you rather be stupid but right or be scientific and wrong? It seems both sides have something to share.
Why would I need to cite anything when the law is simple? "Have a contact address and number in the message" is what the law says. Specifically:
The inclusion of a legitimate return e-mail and physical postal address for the sender.
The inclusion of a functioning opt-out mechanism, which must remain active for a minimum of 30 days after sending the emails, with clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity to opt-out.
Senders must to honor any such opt-out request within 10 days of the request.
Clear and conspicuous notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation in the subject line or content of the email.
Messages with sexually oriented material to be so clearly identified, and at least "one click away" from the main email.
There's no legalese needed. The judge has stepped beyond his bounds on a law he apparently refuses to read. Nowhere does it say that they forfeit their domain privacy. They don't have to post pictures of themselves and their children, and they don't have to fellate judges whenever called upon. The judge was wrong. I am right. If you can't accept that, it's a personal problem you can see a therapist about.
History has shown you to be incorrect. The men who got humans on the moon in the 60's were not only some of the brightest minds of the era, but also the most motivated. They would approach problems that were just as insurmountable to them as the issues you described might seem insurmountable to us. They not only solved them, but they revolutionized technology while they did so. We will not build a smarter human in 100 years. Sitting back and waiting for the unmotivated to come up with answers for you is the slowest, least effective way to get anything done, ever. Waiting for hundreds of years to get "ready" for space is ignorant of everything that got us on the moon, and the ubiquitous benefits of that journey. We can have men on Mars in the next 20 years and thousand-man colonies on the moon in the next 30, for relatively cheap, if we devoted our attentions to it. Technologically overcoming the crises which hound such travels and colonizations would benefit our lives here on Earth better than waiting for some idiot to figure out how to mix corn and plastic into the next Jello, which could ALSO be used in space.
The dark ages taught us that things don't invent themselves. Brilliant minds need to be channeled and focused -- and work best with a large, ominous clock ticking behind them.
In the wrong direction. We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform, increasing national spending, polarizing our government between the political parties, and copyright enforcement. Yes, that would have given the 70's a golden age such as the one we enjoy now, except without microprocessors -- which we don't need.
We're not forming opinions. We're discussing an extremely simple law. If the judge disagrees with me, it's because he is wrong, not because there's a misunderstanding on what "include contact information in the email message" means. He can cancel the law as a judge, but he can't rewrite it to include that spammers must also purchase hot air balloons and use them to fly around the world in 80 days.
"not trusting it blind, even if it is science", "open mind", "science used to be wrong" etc are expressions and phrases very heavily overused by creationists
Then, in your case, the creationists are right. If these are the types of things you hear from people, and you simply dismiss it, perhaps you aren't ready to discuss "science" things. You just want someone you don't like to be wrong.
While that law does not exist, there does exist a law wherein a spammer must identify themselves, comply with unsubscribe requests, etc.
The law exists that they have to have information available where you can contact them, not that all their information should be made public. If they include a mailing address and phone number in the spam message, then there's no legal reason why the domain must show the purchaser's contact information as well. Simply because you can have sex with a prostitute does not mean you can legally rape her.
Slashdot Mirror
I urge everyone to go out and sample real haggis - it is freaking awesome, especially with a good single malt whisky.
I had a Scottish friend a few years back that told me Haggis was a big joke the Scots played on the English. "No true Scotsman would eat Haggis!" He exclaimed, "But any good Scotsman wants to see the look on an Englishman's face when he's chomping down on that kind of crap in the name of culture!"
In Utah, the only legal union is the teachers union. This union thrives by taking money that is going to education, spending it on itself, and then using the last crust to buy what books it can. The next year, it exclaims "We don't have enough money! Look at how few books are in the school libraries!" -- this political stint to get more money for a greedy union uses the students as a shameless sacrifice.
Unions can be neccessary when it comes to claiming a worker's fair rights, however they are also dangerous. If these unions require dues, government money, have union representatives who get paid to represent the union, etc., then the bloodsuckers of humanity will find ways to infiltrate the unions, climb to the top, and become ruiners of their industry. At the top of almost any longstanding union, you will find someone who has become just the tyrant they were claiming to overthrow -- just like in Animal Farm. Pigs will be pigs, and unions give them a very easy place to be very powerful pigs.
She illegally shared a huge number of songs
I was unaware that 24 was considered a huge number of songs by anybody.
The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 fine for file sharing to $54,000
That wouldn't be a reduction. That would be a dramatic increase.
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.
Considering the damages caused by the crime, $500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment. Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, that should be taken into account -- it's a bad law.
Go ahead and mod me down you ignorant bastard. Touch yourself while you do it. It's the closest you can come to bringing an argument against it. You may deem me an idiot, but inso doing, you claim that a mere idiot brought your indestructible ivory tower, built by your century's greatest non-idiots, to rubble.
Continue to delude yourself with thought experiments while reality and logic scream at your door. Watch as the sun dances around the earth, and the galaxy around the sun in the impressive, embarrasing reality you've constructed for yourself. History will see you for what you are -- another chump that bought into a propped-up theory because he didn't want to have to go to sunday school anymore. It won't remember me for anything, because I was just some random guy who stopped to point out the obvious.
After Nintendo's success with the Wii, I'm not surprised they would go for such an embarrassing name for their product. I'm just nervous about where the future is taking us.
Actually, I did address the ridiculous rationalization of "T-rex useless limbs are perfect candidate for wings" as what it is -- rationalization and just ANOTHER trillion-to-one shot THAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE BIRDS! It's ridiculous. The sooner you see it for what it is, you will thank me for pointing it out to you.
You haven't stated one thing wrong with my theory. You refuse to state that my theory is statistically, without hyperbole, hundreds of billions of times more likely than yours -- for EACH species of bird that exists. You cannot refute it because you don't know your own theory better than I do. You do what you are trained to do -- tell me I don't understand it and call it a day. Guess what? You're wrong on two counts: I do understand it, and you're theory is still a rotted egg with holes punched through it.
If you had any SHRED of care for actual science in you, you would THANK me for finding something wrong with the theory. No no no... instead of going into a room where you had stored a mouse you were planning on killing only to find a snake (and no mouse in sight), you insist on telling me that a solar flare probably caused the mouse's DNA to rearrange and become a snake, and that my theory that the snake ate the mouse, as we see commonly in nature, is Stupid because I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR RETARDED THEORY. I do understand your theory and since you cannot refute mine with reason, you reduce yourself to a slavery, wimpering, drooling, brainwashed appliance only capable of telling me I don't understand. That is what YOU don't understand about your theory.
I didn't say that humans and modern chickens were all born at the same time as the dinosaurs. I just said that dinos didn't give birth to humans and chickens. How do new animals come to be on our planet? I don't know. Simply because I've found things I find inexcusably wrong with the existing theory does not mean I've come up with a solid origin story for the new species we uncover every year. I just did the easy part. The hard part would take me much longer to work on, and I'd probably have to start a new line of work.
It's their culture. They are all Robin Hood. Rob from the rich, and give to the poor (themselves). Just ask them, and that's what they'll matter-of-fact tell you.
"Hey kids, the Johnsons did caught us some dinner tonight! Ma! Fry up these here sparrows into something tasty!"
It is a recession.
If you want to discuss evolution with me, you must accept that I understand it just as well as you do.
Every thing you say demonstrates that this is simply not true.
The only difference between my understanding and yours is that I understand that it is wrong. When I describe it, I won't use rationalization, long-shots, conjecture, and attempted philosophy to attempt to support it. I won't weasel around things trying to find something, ANYTHING to connect point A to point B. Simply because it can be explained in a trillion-to-one shot does not make it plausible, likely, or the truth.
When I describe the current theory of evolution, I describe it for the fraud it is. I look past the beauty marks and describe the warts. You can exclaim that those are understood to be beauty marks, and I'll say they're still a bunch of ugly, infected warts. You might pull up the latest conjecture from some philosophy student's book on evolution -- and say that my understanding is missing the mark, that my understanding is misunderstanding. This is dangerous because then you don't listen to a single word I say. You read through paragraphs of simple, reasonable, observation-based explanation of why you are wrong, and by the end, all you've heard is yourself saying "LA LA LA LA LA HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND MY THEORY SO HE'S NOT TALKING TO ME!" You close your mind up like a brainwashed zealot, not because you are a bad, science-hating person, but because that's what evolutions proponents have taught you to do with their rats mazes of explanations. If this is how you view evolution in your mind: 'It is something that no one who disagrees with it can possibly understand as well as I do', then you will never be able to have a constructive dialogue on evolution. Never. Consider yourself direly warned.
I haven't convinced myself that it is truth through years of indoctrination that our school and science programs have all set themselves about propogating. For you, the faith in evolution is as strong as the faith that the turning of the earth will show this hemisphere to the sun tomorrow, just as it did today. You have to ask yourself: Is it healthy for me to put such faith in something that is described as a 16-trillion-to-one chance on the optimistic side?
In either case, to be fair, you must cede that my theory is just as strong, if not stronger, than yours. In the beginning of this discussion, everyone took me to be an idiot with a mindless, silly theory. Now, I hope, only most of you do.
I can feel myself going on an evolution rant, so I will stop now. Just remember that hunches and wild theories mean nothing without valid, peer reviewed evidence. I will gladly take science over guessing games.
Sadly, the supporting arguments for evolution are rationalization, conjecture, manipulation, and "You don't know evolution, and that's why you disagree with it" bullocks. If you want to discuss evolution with me, you must accept that I understand it just as well as you do. I've read all the manipulative literature that you have. I've seen the documentaries, articles, and heard the dialogues. If you can convince yourself that dinosaurs evolved from their glorious forms into birds from the time of their last fossils until the time of the first bird fossils, then you must understand what you look like from my point of view -- as I've quite certainly heard enough from yours.
Pretend for an instant that the fossil records we have are correct -- that the big dinosaurs were killed off. Pretend for an instant that what we see in our modern-day rainforests, savannahs, wetlands, and great plains (extinction of races, not evolution) might have happened BEFORE such phenomena were so easily observable. Pretend that having your most vocal advocates commonly employ the strategy of using unrelated [and unobserved] case studies to patch together their framework of groupthink-enforced manipulation -- might not be convincing to people who don't think like you do. Can you pretend these 3 things, and then tell me, with a straight face, that any of what you say is believable -- I'll have to find myself in disagreement.
Let me put it this way.
If you really want to dance this dance, and argue with me that you are more likely to be right than I am when I say that they died out, not evolved into avians, then you're wrong. You are not more likely to be correct. Natural observations and fossil records are on my side. You have one-in-a-trillion shots, inference, and narrative on yours. Scientifically, I do claim the scientific highground in the name of simple observational science. If you wish to file counterclaim for it, you'd better understand that you aren't arguing with an idiot, or someone who understands evolution any less than you. I'm not using rhetoric, long-shots, guesswork, or unobserved phenomena. I'm saying what happens to hundreds, if not thousands, of species every year happened 60 million years ago. Whatever theory you come up with to disagree with me must be scientifically persuasive enough to disagrees with a theory based on that common, observed FACT of nature... more simply put -- everything dies -- not a theory based upon another theory that was based on the observations on how animals alter, during the course of their lives, to adapt to their environments -- and maybe dinosaurs learned to fly and became chickens.
you don't seem to argue against it becoming a tiny proportion of it's former size, but you think it impossible that it's pectoral muscles could have enlarged in more than 100 million years? What the crap?
I know how to pick my battles. T-rexes did not go from wimpy arms to the most powerful arms of the animal kingdom, (while shrinking and growing feathers), just because one T-rex, from their future, jumped into a time machine and told them they were going to get wiped out in 100 million years if they didn't start working out their useless foreclaws. If anything, the theory of evolution would say they would have lost their arms during this period of great change. If you are a reasonable man, you can see that this proves the algorithm put forth by the current evolution theorists to be greviously incorrect. You can argue that "their useless arms were the PERFECT candidate for wings, because they weren't being used for anything else!" but that's more rationalization than rationality -- wings are an extremely long and arduous road for evolution to begin sprouting for 100 million years with no immediate reason or intent -- especially when the T-rex, like the alligator, spider, or shark, was likely comfortable at the top of his food chain and therefore had no reason to evolve for another half-billion years, much less to evolve into something LOWER on the food chain.
Citation to a peer reviewed article or it didn't happen
If I must. Looks like it was last fall. What the study of Ardi has taught us.
In 20 or 50 years you'll still be as wrong as you are today
You see, my friends? I do not entertain your wild theory, though it has just the mildest scientific backing, and therefore I must be wrong. Am I wrong? You have no (as in zero) absolute grounds on which to say so. What is more likely -- that T-rexes went extinct or that their offspring are our common birds? I say they went extinct. You say they became birds. Perhaps I am wrong, but for you to say that I am wrong, without proof or review - yet claiming a scientific highground, is worse than wrong. In reality, you are spurning science rather than nurturing it. The search for truth isn't as important to you as the fact that those who disagree with you must not be accepted.
I'm quite sure that I am right. I think that T-rexes did die off. I think that they didn't become birds. My theory is fundamentally more likely, more practical, and matches fossil and observation records better than yours. Do you really want to say that I'm W.R.O.N.G. and that you are right?
And as for the "common ancestor" thing, yes, I'm aware of the argument. It's what came about when neanderthals were no longer considered our ancestors. Then it was moved back to chimps. Now, it's been moved back to some tiger-lemur-looking thing. Is that the argument? That a tiger-lemur-looking thing is our grandparent, because it's not a chimp? Since you were wrong the last 20 times you found an ancestor, that you've found it this time, and everyone who disagrees with you is an elementary-school-level stooge? Not buying it. As I said, I'll happily meet you at the truth, that is, if it doesn't disagree so much with the biological crusade of "monkey is my grandpa" that you refuse to accept it when it's uncovered. Until then, you can continue to think of me as a religious nutjob or whatever you guys are trained into believing all your detractors are.
Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern? At least with all that lithium around, depression should be a thing of the past!
Great, along with lithium's side effect of "decreased sperm motility", you can cue the conspiracy theorists that the government is funding a population-control device.
I think the whole "dinosaurs evolved into chickens" things is rather silly. Exhibit A: Alligators and sharks. They were around the same time as T-rex. They may have shrunk, but that's about it. Exhibit B: Birds. They do not have useless forearms. In fact, in order to fly, their wings (they have these instead of arms, you see) must be powered by incredibly strong muscles. Even if humans had wings, our pectorals are all simply too wimpy for us to even lift ourselves off the ground. Withered, useless claws would not power up the beefy torso needed for a T-rex to lift itself off the ground.
So what about this "collagen" evidence? Easy. The T-rex ate enough birds that it got bird collagen to fill in its bones. Check out the sea slugs that eat enough algea to photosynthesize. There were T-rexes, there were dinosaurs with feathers, there were delicious birds.
Feel free to call me stupid in the face of your pithy evidences, but in 10, 20, or 50 years (however long it takes), I'll continue to say the same thing (and be right), and you'll say "Well, the facts have shown that our original theories were incorrect, so we've modified our theories, and it's ok, because that's what science does, but you were still a moron when you disagreed with our incorrect-but-widely-believed theory!" -- worse than religious nutjobs you are. (Oh, and parent poster, when I say "you", I'm speaking in the general "you people who disagree with me and my theory of 'T-rexes were too awesome to have stupid bird babies'") Just like with chimps. Latest evidence (findings published last fall, I believe?) shows we didn't evolve from chimps, but everyone who believed in the chimp-is-my-grandpa theory is still right/was always right, and everyone who said "I don't think chimp is my grandpa" was wrong, is wrong, and is an idiot, aren't they?
Well, when it finally finds us, I'll meet you at the truth. Until then, I propose a philosophical, rhetorical question: would you rather be stupid but right or be scientific and wrong? It seems both sides have something to share.
There's no legalese needed. The judge has stepped beyond his bounds on a law he apparently refuses to read. Nowhere does it say that they forfeit their domain privacy. They don't have to post pictures of themselves and their children, and they don't have to fellate judges whenever called upon. The judge was wrong. I am right. If you can't accept that, it's a personal problem you can see a therapist about.
History has shown you to be incorrect. The men who got humans on the moon in the 60's were not only some of the brightest minds of the era, but also the most motivated. They would approach problems that were just as insurmountable to them as the issues you described might seem insurmountable to us. They not only solved them, but they revolutionized technology while they did so. We will not build a smarter human in 100 years. Sitting back and waiting for the unmotivated to come up with answers for you is the slowest, least effective way to get anything done, ever. Waiting for hundreds of years to get "ready" for space is ignorant of everything that got us on the moon, and the ubiquitous benefits of that journey. We can have men on Mars in the next 20 years and thousand-man colonies on the moon in the next 30, for relatively cheap, if we devoted our attentions to it. Technologically overcoming the crises which hound such travels and colonizations would benefit our lives here on Earth better than waiting for some idiot to figure out how to mix corn and plastic into the next Jello, which could ALSO be used in space.
The dark ages taught us that things don't invent themselves. Brilliant minds need to be channeled and focused -- and work best with a large, ominous clock ticking behind them.
In the wrong direction. We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform, increasing national spending, polarizing our government between the political parties, and copyright enforcement. Yes, that would have given the 70's a golden age such as the one we enjoy now, except without microprocessors -- which we don't need.
We're not forming opinions. We're discussing an extremely simple law. If the judge disagrees with me, it's because he is wrong, not because there's a misunderstanding on what "include contact information in the email message" means. He can cancel the law as a judge, but he can't rewrite it to include that spammers must also purchase hot air balloons and use them to fly around the world in 80 days.
"not trusting it blind, even if it is science", "open mind", "science used to be wrong" etc are expressions and phrases very heavily overused by creationists
Then, in your case, the creationists are right. If these are the types of things you hear from people, and you simply dismiss it, perhaps you aren't ready to discuss "science" things. You just want someone you don't like to be wrong.
While that law does not exist, there does exist a law wherein a spammer must identify themselves, comply with unsubscribe requests, etc.
The law exists that they have to have information available where you can contact them, not that all their information should be made public. If they include a mailing address and phone number in the spam message, then there's no legal reason why the domain must show the purchaser's contact information as well. Simply because you can have sex with a prostitute does not mean you can legally rape her.
If a girl works as a stripper or porn star, then raping her is legal, is that correct?
If engine of your car is much bigger than that, you should consider replacing your car.
0.215 millimeters width, length, and depth?
He obviously works for a car company.