You seem to think if Padilla and his Towelheadettes are given a public trial, the attacks against the US will stop.
Of course not, but if they DON'T get a trial, then we have abandoned quite a lot of what we are supposed to be fighting for.
This nation is at war with these bastards
No, we are not. Get this into your head. Only Congress can declare war. They haven't. Therefore, we are not at war with "those bastards".
Do yourself a favor and stop identifying with Islamocriminals and stop bleating about your bloody rights. They are not being harmed.
You don't find it scary that the government can slap a "enemy combatant" label on anyone and hold them indefinitely? Hell, they could come and get me for making this post. Is that right?
If anyone is identifying with the terrorists, it is you.
Just make sure Padilla cannot continue his activities, constructing bombs, etc...
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? How do you KNOW he's guilty of any of that if he doesn't have a trial? The government said so? In that case, we might as well get rid of the judicial system because, naturally, if the cops arrest someone, they must be guilty.
Don't get me wrong, I think he probably IS guilty, but that's for the courts to decide. If the government really has enough evidence to hold him without trial forever, then they surely ought to have enough to get a conviction in a court of law; and after that, they can hold him until his corpse rots away.
... has anyone that was _not_ a terrorist or at least suspicious ever been detained because of these laws? Has there ever been any false arrests? I doubt it...
Well, there's no way to know for sure, now is there? If they keep someone locked up in secret with no trial or legal representation, how would we (the public) ever find out if they were a terrorist or not?
The length of time that Person Q was without a father because of that car accident that was "nobody's fault" has approximately ZERO weight compared to the length of time after Person Q buys the farm and is no longer in pain.
Prove that we have an eternal soul.
1. Look for Jesus (who IS God, made flesh).
God is smarter than I am. Let Him try to find me.
2. When you find Him, trust Him that he knows what to do.
The genre isn't dead. I have friends developing a streamlined game system [igsgames.com] that keeps all the stuff you want in a fantasy RPG,
Try Earthdawn. It has a slick (IMO) dice system and a great world setting. Living Room Games resurrected it after FASA killed it off; not long before FASA went belly-up themselves.
Well, the idea is that the star you are trying to measure the distance to is much closer than the 'background' stars; so the distant stars won't have a parallax shift nearly as large as the close one. Also, even through the star is moving, it won't move very far (relative to its distance) over the course of a year.
Scientific theories are proposed to be shot down. Why are you working so hard to support it, when you should be attempting to shoot it down so that it can be refined to better describe the true facts?
Because I am not a scientist. I can only report what thousands of other scientists have already reported. And scientists have shot down evolutionary theories. At first, it was thought that evolution generally proceeded at a very slow pace. Now the prevailing idea (I may be wrong about this) is that it tends to proceeds in fits and starts [punctuated equilibria].
I can not determine that the earth has been proven to be spherical?
No, no, no. That the earth is spherical is a fact. Why is is spherical? Theory: Gravity tries to pull everything as close as possible. Theory: The Magratheana built it that way. Theory: It's being pushed equally from all sides by Mysterious Space Rays.
We invent theories to try to explain the facts.
And here is the crux of the matter: While I agree that species do adapt over time, that still doesn't show a fact that points to evolution.
The term "evolution" just means that the genetic makeup of a population of organisms changes over time. Therefore, adaptation is evolution by definition!
That species change is a fact. No one disputes this. There are theories of evolution that explain how it happens. This is what people mean when they say evolution is both a fact and a theory.
In other words half of them did something that the scientist predicted so he talks about that and not about the half that behaved normally
There used to be a theory of gravity, it is now the law of gravity. It has been proven
No. Nothing is ever 'proven' in science. All we have are theories that haven't been overturned -- yet.
Now, there is a thing we call 'gravity', which seems to cause masses to be attracted to each other. This is a fact. We have several theories that try to explain how it happens. There's the classical Newtonian force theory, there's General Relativity, where gravity is a curvature of spacetime, and some day we hope to have a quantum theory of gravity.
Similarly, there is something called 'evolution', in which species change over time. This is a fact. As with gravity, we have different theories that attempt to explain exaclty how it happens.
So you are saying that you have proof of the three items you mentioned? Would you please post them for our education?
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Because he is arguing, correctly IMHO, that these are two completely different phenomemons:
No, he isn't. There is no 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. There is only evolution, which just means that the populations of living things change over time.
Oh, and we have seen speciation happen.
And as for breeding wolves from dogs; where do you think the dogs came from in the first place?
And, genetically, I'm as close to some plants as I am to that monkey.
Got a citation for that?
Scientifically speaking, neither side is anywhere close to being able to offer conclusive proof,
Premise: Humans and elephants are still vertebrates. Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is impossible.
This states that a species will get stronger,
No. It says that species will change. That this happens is patently obvious.
but it cannot explain how a species would turn into another species, such as a lizard into a bird.
We have seen speciation happen in the wild and in the lab.
Re:The Constitution doesn't need amending
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Taken literally (and as the Founding Fathers intended!) this means that most of these freedoms we take for granted were never intended to be freedoms at the level they are, but rather issues left to the individual states!
Nope. If there is a conflict, the US Constituion trumps any local or State laws.
The difference is, an alien race trying to communicate will deliberately try to make their message decipherable, whereas this manuscript might have been written in someone's personal code which was deliberately designed to be UNdecipherable.
To have "jumped the shark" pretty much means to have "gone to hell"
Mmmm, not quite. The point at which something has jummped the shark is that precise moment where you know that the 'golden days' are over. You know that from that point, it's all downhill.
There's a good web site about jumping the shark as applied to TV shows here.
Macroevolution, however, I would love to see the evidence for.
As I and others have posted, "macro" and "micro" are meaningless. How do you define where one ends and another begins?
But disregarding that, let me pose this question: Given enough time, what's to prevent 'micro'evolution from becoming 'macro'evolution?
Let's imagine a group of organisms. Due to tectonic forces over millions of years, a mountain range grows in their habitat. Some of the creatures stay there, and some migrate to a nearby lake or sea. The ones in the mountains gradually evolve a thick layer of fat, white hair to hide in the snow, a more efficient cardiovascular system to handle thinner air, a long nose to look for food under the snow, and the ability to slow their metabolism (hibernate). The ones near the water slowly grow thinner and sleeker, develop webbed feet, a wide tail, and their nostils move to the top of their nose.
Now nothing in this scenario involves more than a small 'micro'evolutionary changes, but after millions, maybe even just thousands, of years, you will have two different species that look nothing alike and have totally different body structures. In other words, you have 'macro'evolution.
The difference between the 2 arguments though is in saying that humans evolved from apes.
Good thing that's not what the theory says then.:) Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. In other words, and some point there was a population of creatures that weren't human, and weren't an ape. Part of that population evolved in one direction and became the apes (and further divided into the gorillas, the orangs, etc), and another part evolved in another direction and became humans.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think if Padilla and his Towelheadettes are given a public trial, the attacks against the US will stop.
Of course not, but if they DON'T get a trial, then we have abandoned quite a lot of what we are supposed to be fighting for.
This nation is at war with these bastards
No, we are not. Get this into your head. Only Congress can declare war. They haven't. Therefore, we are not at war with "those bastards".
Do yourself a favor and stop identifying with Islamocriminals and stop bleating about your bloody rights. They are not being harmed.
You don't find it scary that the government can slap a "enemy combatant" label on anyone and hold them indefinitely? Hell, they could come and get me for making this post. Is that right?
If anyone is identifying with the terrorists, it is you.
Just make sure Padilla cannot continue his activities, constructing bombs, etc...
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? How do you KNOW he's guilty of any of that if he doesn't have a trial? The government said so? In that case, we might as well get rid of the judicial system because, naturally, if the cops arrest someone, they must be guilty.
Don't get me wrong, I think he probably IS guilty, but that's for the courts to decide. If the government really has enough evidence to hold him without trial forever, then they surely ought to have enough to get a conviction in a court of law; and after that, they can hold him until his corpse rots away.
Well, there's no way to know for sure, now is there? If they keep someone locked up in secret with no trial or legal representation, how would we (the public) ever find out if they were a terrorist or not?
The length of time that Person Q was without a father because of that car accident that was "nobody's fault" has approximately ZERO weight compared to the length of time after Person Q buys the farm and is no longer in pain.
Prove that we have an eternal soul.
1. Look for Jesus (who IS God, made flesh).
God is smarter than I am. Let Him try to find me.
2. When you find Him, trust Him that he knows what to do.
Trust has to be earned.
Argument from Incredulity.
In other words, your inability to conceive of any other way those things could have come about is not evidence for a creator.
The genre isn't dead. I have friends developing a streamlined game system [igsgames.com] that keeps all the stuff you want in a fantasy RPG,
Try Earthdawn. It has a slick (IMO) dice system and a great world setting. Living Room Games resurrected it after FASA killed it off; not long before FASA went belly-up themselves.
Well, the idea is that the star you are trying to measure the distance to is much closer than the 'background' stars; so the distant stars won't have a parallax shift nearly as large as the close one. Also, even through the star is moving, it won't move very far (relative to its distance) over the course of a year.
Scientific theories are proposed to be shot down. Why are you working so hard to support it, when you should be attempting to shoot it down so that it can be refined to better describe the true facts?
Because I am not a scientist. I can only report what thousands of other scientists have already reported. And scientists have shot down evolutionary theories. At first, it was thought that evolution generally proceeded at a very slow pace. Now the prevailing idea (I may be wrong about this) is that it tends to proceeds in fits and starts [punctuated equilibria].
I can not determine that the earth has been proven to be spherical?
No, no, no. That the earth is spherical is a fact. Why is is spherical? Theory: Gravity tries to pull everything as close as possible. Theory: The Magratheana built it that way. Theory: It's being pushed equally from all sides by Mysterious Space Rays.
We invent theories to try to explain the facts.
And here is the crux of the matter:
While I agree that species do adapt over time, that still doesn't show a fact that points to evolution.
The term "evolution" just means that the genetic makeup of a population of organisms changes over time. Therefore, adaptation is evolution by definition!
That species change is a fact. No one disputes this. There are theories of evolution that explain how it happens. This is what people mean when they say evolution is both a fact and a theory.
In other words half of them did something that the scientist predicted so he talks about that and not about the half that behaved normally
Read the document.
There used to be a theory of gravity, it is now the law of gravity. It has been proven
No. Nothing is ever 'proven' in science. All we have are theories that haven't been overturned -- yet.
Now, there is a thing we call 'gravity', which seems to cause masses to be attracted to each other. This is a fact. We have several theories that try to explain how it happens. There's the classical Newtonian force theory, there's General Relativity, where gravity is a curvature of spacetime, and some day we hope to have a quantum theory of gravity.
Similarly, there is something called 'evolution', in which species change over time. This is a fact. As with gravity, we have different theories that attempt to explain exaclty how it happens.
So you are saying that you have proof of the three items you mentioned? Would you please post them for our education?
I'm not the original poster, but here is a list of observed speciation events.
But number 2 is not evolution, it is adaptation and that is totally different
No. Adaptation IS evolution.
Not true, of course.
:)
True, of course.
And the rest of the paragraph reads:
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher
knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
but when they landed there, there was only an inch or so.
Nah, they only sank in an inch. When you go to the beach, how far do you sink into the sand? And how deep is it?
There is alot of evidence to support Creationism, and a good portion of it is scientific.
Such as?
"Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
What happens on that day if the Lord turns out to be Odin the All-Father in the Halls of Asgard?
Boy will you feel foolish!
The future is in intelligent design, baby.
:)
Intelligent design, eh?
Why didn't the designer make my jaw big enough to hold all my teeth including my wisdom teeth?
Why did the designer make it possible for me to choke on a piece of food?
Why are human eyes so much crappier compared to, for example, a squid's?
Why is our reproductive system such a kludge?
Why do we have a useless add-on to our digestive system (the appendix), which in some people ruptures and kills them?
I guess the designer is an idiot.
Because he is arguing, correctly IMHO, that these are two completely different phenomemons:
No, he isn't. There is no 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. There is only evolution, which just means that the populations of living things change over time.
Oh, and we have seen speciation happen.
And as for breeding wolves from dogs; where do you think the dogs came from in the first place?
And, genetically, I'm as close to some plants as I am to that monkey.
Got a citation for that?
Scientifically speaking, neither side is anywhere close to being able to offer conclusive proof,
But at least one side has evidence.
But they're all still canines.
Gotta love this logic.
Premise: Humans and elephants are still vertebrates.
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is impossible.
This states that a species will get stronger,
No. It says that species will change. That this happens is patently obvious.
but it cannot explain how a species would turn into another species, such as a lizard into a bird.
We have seen speciation happen in the wild and in the lab.
Taken literally (and as the Founding Fathers intended!) this means that most of these freedoms we take for granted were never intended to be freedoms at the level they are, but rather issues left to the individual states!
Nope. If there is a conflict, the US Constituion trumps any local or State laws.
The difference is, an alien race trying to communicate will deliberately try to make their message decipherable, whereas this manuscript might have been written in someone's personal code which was deliberately designed to be UNdecipherable.
Oh, come on now. Christians don't claim that ordinary laypeople can turn water into wine. That was a miracle, and so unusual it was noted.
:)
Fair enough. How about this then: The Bible says that people who are True Believers can move mountains with their faith.
We'll be waiting.
To have "jumped the shark" pretty much means to have "gone to hell"
Mmmm, not quite. The point at which something has jummped the shark is that precise moment where you know that the 'golden days' are over. You know that from that point, it's all downhill.
There's a good web site about jumping the shark as applied to TV shows here.
Quick answers:
Basically, our copy of the record seems to be missing millions of species.
Fossilization is very rare. But since the fossil record is the weakest evidence for evolution, it's not that important.
The second problem I have with the theory is the lack of evidence for mutations increasing the amount of information in a gene pool.
1) Why do you think there has to be "increasing information".
2) What do you mean by "information" anyway?
Macroevolution, however, I would love to see the evidence for.
As I and others have posted, "macro" and "micro" are meaningless. How do you define where one ends and another begins?
But disregarding that, let me pose this question: Given enough time, what's to prevent 'micro'evolution from becoming 'macro'evolution?
Let's imagine a group of organisms. Due to tectonic forces over millions of years, a mountain range grows in their habitat. Some of the creatures stay there, and some migrate to a nearby lake or sea. The ones in the mountains gradually evolve a thick layer of fat, white hair to hide in the snow, a more efficient cardiovascular system to handle thinner air, a long nose to look for food under the snow, and the ability to slow their metabolism (hibernate). The ones near the water slowly grow thinner and sleeker, develop webbed feet, a wide tail, and their nostils move to the top of their nose.
Now nothing in this scenario involves more than a small 'micro'evolutionary changes, but after millions, maybe even just thousands, of years, you will have two different species that look nothing alike and have totally different body structures. In other words, you have 'macro'evolution.
The difference between the 2 arguments though is in saying that humans evolved from apes.
:) Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. In other words, and some point there was a population of creatures that weren't human, and weren't an ape. Part of that population evolved in one direction and became the apes (and further divided into the gorillas, the orangs, etc), and another part evolved in another direction and became humans.
Good thing that's not what the theory says then.
So we have witnessed one species become another?
Yes.