If he went to schools in Florida similar to the ones I attended, when one hit high school, the counselors told one what one needed to graduate and proceed to one's desired future path (college, trade school, etc.) and it was up to oneself to pick a schedule of classes that met the requirements. One was responsible for one's own schedule, just like one would be in college.
FYI all of this occurred in the Florida, Treasure Coast area.
Well, THERE'S your problem. Florida has one of the lowest ranking school systems in the nation. I have lived in Florida most of my life and I have watched the school system fall down on the job for as long as I have been here. My nephews are an embarrassment. They can't spell and have horrible grammar. I am surprised they were able to graduate high school.
Now all you have to do is get the reporter to give you his confidential source and have said source publicly testify about how he violated the law and his security clearance by discussing highly classified material substantially damaging national security and covert operations.
Different question, same response. There is not enough evidence to say who distributed it. "We didn't do it." and the burden of proof falls on the claimant.
The thing is, no one knows who wrote it. Sure, there is speculation that the U.S. and/or Israel did, but no one knows for sure. The simplest thing for the government to do is say "We can't because we didn't write it." Then, it falls on the asker to prove they did.
I am in the natural state, the state all people start off in. People are not born believing in fairy tales, myths, and gods. People pop up and say "You should believe this book of fairy tales about an invisible sky daddy is real or he will burn you forever in a lake of fire." To which I reply "Show me your evidence." Then, they do as you and the GPP have done "Prove I am wrong", "Why shouldn't you believe?". I see no reason to believe in something that has no evidence for and quite a bit of evidence against.
I came to the conclusion because there is no evidence of anything "beyond the scope of what you can observe". If one can not observe the supernatural and provide evidence of a god, why should one believe in either?
How did you come to the conclusion that there is a god? Where did you get the idea there was a god? Did it come from a bunch of bronze and earlier age fairy tales handed down orally for centuries? Where is your evidence of a god? Do you have any at all? Where, exactly, is the "garden of Eden"? Where are the remains of the "Tower of Bable" which was supposedly so huge?
Seriously, in order to claim knowledge of a thing then claim said thing is unknowable and undetectable is just idiocy.
Of course you disagree with it because it actually requires you to prove the existence of your imaginary designer for which there is no evidence. Like so many creationists, you abhor the burden of proof that lies upon you.
I have no burden of proof to show there is no designer because you are the one making the claim there is a designer. You make the claim, you get the burden of proof. By saying I must prove you wrong, you are showing your ignorance. Please explain why you should not have the basic burden of proof that falls upon all claimants.
At risk, many say, are the very qualities that have drawn generations of outsiders here, like the city's diversity and creativity. Families, black residents, artists and others will increasingly be forced across the bridge to Oakland, they warn.'"
So, what they are saying is that Oakland will become the new San Francisco with all the quirky goodness and diversity. Oakland will benefit economically and socially from the influx of diverse, creative people. It will become a tourist destination, jobs will come, property values will rise, etc.
And, San Francisco will become a tech hub the residents of which will go to Oakland to experience what once was in San Francisco.
I think you misunderstood the post. The post isn't saying that creationism is on the level of psychology. It is saying that one needs psychology to understand why people insist that something that is obviously make believe is real.
While we are at it, please provide proof of the validity of the bible and the existence of your god. I want at least 3 separate, scientifically valid pieces of evidence for each and every story in the bible and for your god and evidence for your god must be independent of the bible. Also, show your god evidence your god existed before time and personally created the universe, created this solar system, this planet, all things on this planet including humans, and by genetic testing prove that "Jesus" had no humanly father.
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
Please show a reputable geologic science article stating that "the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced)" in millions of years. And, please state and provide a link to the article that caused you to believe that statement.
Excuse me? Did you ask "What if they aren't wrong"? Seriously? OK, let me answer your questions and explain things to you.
First, that question is a fallacy known as appeal to consequence and is the basis if Pascal's Wager. Now, I ask you: What if both they and the science are wrong, specifically, they have the wrong god and the actual god prefers non-believers to those who believe in the Abrahamic god? After all, there are literally millions of gods out there. What if you are worshiping the wrong god and pissing off the god(s) you should be worshiping?
Next, let's look at the facts. There is no evidence they are right. None. Zero. Zilch. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is based on scientific evidence, which is falsifiable and repeatable and which has been repeatedly proven correct.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all points of view are equal. That is false. The reason the creationist point of view is not accepted in the scientific community is that it is not based on science and much of it has been debunked.
Creationism starts with an unsupported, unverifiable claim, specifically that there is a god who created everything. The closest thing they have to evidence is a book of bronze and earlier age stories which do not match observable facts. The primary argument used by creationists to support creationism are all fallacies including but not limited to appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and argument from ignorance. The primary arguments creationists use against ToE include but are not limited to appeal to consequence, argument from incredulity, and moving the goal posts. But, they never provide any testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence.
Creationists also lie about the scope and content of the ToE. The ToE is based on scientific evidence from biology, microbiology, genetics, archaeology, paleontology, and biochemistry. It is not based on a bunch of stories from a time when disease was thought to be caused by spirits and not microbes.
Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the universe, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of cosmology. Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the existence of life, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of biochemistry.
Creationism isn't a point of view. It isn't a scientific theory. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It isn't even a conjecture. Creationism is superstition based on stories made up by ignorant nomadic tribesman to explain the existence of world and universe they didn't understand.
No. A false belief is still false and even if the entire world believes it, it is not demeaning to call it false. That massive and silly death cult (and yes, it is a death cult) is a mythology thus it is not demeaning to call it such.
Really, fuckwhit? I guess that makes it OK to threaten to set off bombs, and kill protesters at the GOP convention, as long as one does it on twitter, right? And, the next time someone says they need help on twitter or facebook, you know like the woman who asked someone to call 911 for her when her live in boyfriend ripped the phones out of the wall and beat the shit out of her, we should all ignore it because it is all a fucking joke, right?
How about here on slashdot? Would it be OK for me to say I was going to hunt you down, torture you, then kill you slowly? After all, the,ontext is slashdot, just another social news and networking site similar to twitter.
How about when a middle aged man tries to hook up with a 13yo girl on the internet via social networking? Should we assume he is just goofing around?
Well, shithead? Should we assume everything said on the internet is a fucking joke, like you and your opinion?
How can a threat to bomb an airport be considered as a joke?
Because of something called "context". If I go to a comedy club, and the comedian on-stage tells a joke and then says as the punchline, "And I'm going to blow up the airport!" do you think he would be arrested? Do you think any fucken moron in the audience wouldn't see it as part of a joke. CONTEXT. I don't know the context of this guy's post on Twitter, but I think it might be safe to say that this particular case could have used a little more fucken intelligent analysis...
Really?
Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!
There is the guys post. What is the fucking context, asshole?
“Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”
He is not saying he wants to blow up the airport. He is saying he is going to blow up the airport if they don't run their operations in a manner he deems fit.
But, like I showed, the example itself is false. And, in this case, the example doesn't apply because one is not getting a "cheaper" XBox. Rich or poor, one gets the same quality device. It is only how one pays for it that is different.
What you fail to see is that this is just another form of financing hardware via a contract for service. And, as far as financing goes, it is pretty good. It is less than 15%APR on the 2 years of the contract. One can buy one's way out of the contract and if one defaults on the contract, one loses the service, but gets to keep the hardware.
A pair of $10.00 boots can be resoled with leather for about $1.00. If Sam Vimes buys a new pair of boots every time his soles wore out, he would be considered a wasteful fool.
What do you consider "quality living"? I am single and live in an expensive area in Tampa, FL in a large 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment that I pay $885 per month on, plus I have a garage at $100 per month. That is less than $1000 for housing and I am living large. I could move to a 1 bedroom, 1 bath apartment in a middle class neighborhood and pay around $700. My basic utilities would be about $150. That is $850 per month for housing and utilities, which leaves$150 for food, etc. That is tight but doable. If I go to a lower class neighborhood, I can get a place for between $400 and $650. And, if one is making minimum wage, one is in the lower class. I worked at a company making large commercial signs out of metal (real physical labor) and made $8.50 an hour. I have been there.
Why are so many minimum wage earners still on government assistance? They waste money on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, and eating out at fast food restaurants. They have sex for recreation and end up with kids. They spend a lot on entertainment and communication in the form of cable TV, cell phones, and game systems. They buy $2000.00 cars, spend thousands to paint it and modify it to accept over-sized wheels, then rent rims and tires.
Slashdot Mirror
If he went to schools in Florida similar to the ones I attended, when one hit high school, the counselors told one what one needed to graduate and proceed to one's desired future path (college, trade school, etc.) and it was up to oneself to pick a schedule of classes that met the requirements. One was responsible for one's own schedule, just like one would be in college.
FYI all of this occurred in the Florida, Treasure Coast area.
Well, THERE'S your problem. Florida has one of the lowest ranking school systems in the nation. I have lived in Florida most of my life and I have watched the school system fall down on the job for as long as I have been here. My nephews are an embarrassment. They can't spell and have horrible grammar. I am surprised they were able to graduate high school.
Now all you have to do is get the reporter to give you his confidential source and have said source publicly testify about how he violated the law and his security clearance by discussing highly classified material substantially damaging national security and covert operations.
Let me know how that goes.
Different question, same response. There is not enough evidence to say who distributed it. "We didn't do it." and the burden of proof falls on the claimant.
Laws apply, but which country's?
Well, if one writes the contract correctly, it will specify the jurisdiction for disputes just like so many contracts do.
The thing is, no one knows who wrote it. Sure, there is speculation that the U.S. and/or Israel did, but no one knows for sure. The simplest thing for the government to do is say "We can't because we didn't write it." Then, it falls on the asker to prove they did.
I am in the natural state, the state all people start off in. People are not born believing in fairy tales, myths, and gods. People pop up and say "You should believe this book of fairy tales about an invisible sky daddy is real or he will burn you forever in a lake of fire." To which I reply "Show me your evidence." Then, they do as you and the GPP have done "Prove I am wrong", "Why shouldn't you believe?". I see no reason to believe in something that has no evidence for and quite a bit of evidence against.
I came to the conclusion because there is no evidence of anything "beyond the scope of what you can observe". If one can not observe the supernatural and provide evidence of a god, why should one believe in either?
How did you come to the conclusion that there is a god? Where did you get the idea there was a god? Did it come from a bunch of bronze and earlier age fairy tales handed down orally for centuries? Where is your evidence of a god? Do you have any at all? Where, exactly, is the "garden of Eden"? Where are the remains of the "Tower of Bable" which was supposedly so huge?
Seriously, in order to claim knowledge of a thing then claim said thing is unknowable and undetectable is just idiocy.
Of course you disagree with it because it actually requires you to prove the existence of your imaginary designer for which there is no evidence. Like so many creationists, you abhor the burden of proof that lies upon you.
I have no burden of proof to show there is no designer because you are the one making the claim there is a designer. You make the claim, you get the burden of proof. By saying I must prove you wrong, you are showing your ignorance. Please explain why you should not have the basic burden of proof that falls upon all claimants.
At risk, many say, are the very qualities that have drawn generations of outsiders here, like the city's diversity and creativity. Families, black residents, artists and others will increasingly be forced across the bridge to Oakland, they warn.'"
So, what they are saying is that Oakland will become the new San Francisco with all the quirky goodness and diversity. Oakland will benefit economically and socially from the influx of diverse, creative people. It will become a tourist destination, jobs will come, property values will rise, etc.
And, San Francisco will become a tech hub the residents of which will go to Oakland to experience what once was in San Francisco.
I think you misunderstood the post. The post isn't saying that creationism is on the level of psychology. It is saying that one needs psychology to understand why people insist that something that is obviously make believe is real.
While we are at it, please provide proof of the validity of the bible and the existence of your god. I want at least 3 separate, scientifically valid pieces of evidence for each and every story in the bible and for your god and evidence for your god must be independent of the bible. Also, show your god evidence your god existed before time and personally created the universe, created this solar system, this planet, all things on this planet including humans, and by genetic testing prove that "Jesus" had no humanly father.
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
Please show a reputable geologic science article stating that "the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced)" in millions of years. And, please state and provide a link to the article that caused you to believe that statement.
I have NOT used such an argument in this forum, nor would I attempt to try and talk you into accepting such an argument.
That is the basic reasoning of creationist. If you are a creationist, then that is your reasoning and denying is disingenuous.
Now, show credible scientific evidence a designer exists.
Excuse me? Did you ask "What if they aren't wrong"? Seriously? OK, let me answer your questions and explain things to you.
First, that question is a fallacy known as appeal to consequence and is the basis if Pascal's Wager. Now, I ask you: What if both they and the science are wrong, specifically, they have the wrong god and the actual god prefers non-believers to those who believe in the Abrahamic god? After all, there are literally millions of gods out there. What if you are worshiping the wrong god and pissing off the god(s) you should be worshiping?
Next, let's look at the facts. There is no evidence they are right. None. Zero. Zilch. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is based on scientific evidence, which is falsifiable and repeatable and which has been repeatedly proven correct.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all points of view are equal. That is false. The reason the creationist point of view is not accepted in the scientific community is that it is not based on science and much of it has been debunked.
Creationism starts with an unsupported, unverifiable claim, specifically that there is a god who created everything. The closest thing they have to evidence is a book of bronze and earlier age stories which do not match observable facts. The primary argument used by creationists to support creationism are all fallacies including but not limited to appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and argument from ignorance. The primary arguments creationists use against ToE include but are not limited to appeal to consequence, argument from incredulity, and moving the goal posts. But, they never provide any testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence.
Creationists also lie about the scope and content of the ToE. The ToE is based on scientific evidence from biology, microbiology, genetics, archaeology, paleontology, and biochemistry. It is not based on a bunch of stories from a time when disease was thought to be caused by spirits and not microbes.
Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the universe, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of cosmology.
Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the existence of life, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of biochemistry.
Creationism isn't a point of view. It isn't a scientific theory. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It isn't even a conjecture. Creationism is superstition based on stories made up by ignorant nomadic tribesman to explain the existence of world and universe they didn't understand.
No. A false belief is still false and even if the entire world believes it, it is not demeaning to call it false. That massive and silly death cult (and yes, it is a death cult) is a mythology thus it is not demeaning to call it such.
Stop sticking your fucking opinion in the posts and shut the fuck up.
Really, fuckwhit? I guess that makes it OK to threaten to set off bombs, and kill protesters at the GOP convention, as long as one does it on twitter, right? And, the next time someone says they need help on twitter or facebook, you know like the woman who asked someone to call 911 for her when her live in boyfriend ripped the phones out of the wall and beat the shit out of her, we should all ignore it because it is all a fucking joke, right?
How about here on slashdot? Would it be OK for me to say I was going to hunt you down, torture you, then kill you slowly? After all, the ,ontext is slashdot, just another social news and networking site similar to twitter.
How about when a middle aged man tries to hook up with a 13yo girl on the internet via social networking? Should we assume he is just goofing around?
Well, shithead? Should we assume everything said on the internet is a fucking joke, like you and your opinion?
How can a threat to bomb an airport be considered as a joke?
Because of something called "context". If I go to a comedy club, and the comedian on-stage tells a joke and then says as the punchline, "And I'm going to blow up the airport!" do you think he would be arrested? Do you think any fucken moron in the audience wouldn't see it as part of a joke. CONTEXT. I don't know the context of this guy's post on Twitter, but I think it might be safe to say that this particular case could have used a little more fucken intelligent analysis...
Really?
Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!
There is the guys post. What is the fucking context, asshole?
“Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”
He is not saying he wants to blow up the airport. He is saying he is going to blow up the airport if they don't run their operations in a manner he deems fit.
How are reporters going to be paid? Do you think they will work for free?
Selection Bias.
You are asking a group with a majority population which i against intellectual property. I think we all know what people are going to say.
But, like I showed, the example itself is false. And, in this case, the example doesn't apply because one is not getting a "cheaper" XBox. Rich or poor, one gets the same quality device. It is only how one pays for it that is different.
What you fail to see is that this is just another form of financing hardware via a contract for service. And, as far as financing goes, it is pretty good. It is less than 15%APR on the 2 years of the contract. One can buy one's way out of the contract and if one defaults on the contract, one loses the service, but gets to keep the hardware.
One who throws out boots because the soles have worn out is a fool for not having them resoled for a tenth the price.
Fiction is a bad place to pull examples.
A pair of $10.00 boots can be resoled with leather for about $1.00. If Sam Vimes buys a new pair of boots every time his soles wore out, he would be considered a wasteful fool.
What do you consider "quality living"? I am single and live in an expensive area in Tampa, FL in a large 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment that I pay $885 per month on, plus I have a garage at $100 per month. That is less than $1000 for housing and I am living large. I could move to a 1 bedroom, 1 bath apartment in a middle class neighborhood and pay around $700. My basic utilities would be about $150. That is $850 per month for housing and utilities, which leaves$150 for food, etc. That is tight but doable. If I go to a lower class neighborhood, I can get a place for between $400 and $650. And, if one is making minimum wage, one is in the lower class. I worked at a company making large commercial signs out of metal (real physical labor) and made $8.50 an hour. I have been there.
Why are so many minimum wage earners still on government assistance? They waste money on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, and eating out at fast food restaurants. They have sex for recreation and end up with kids. They spend a lot on entertainment and communication in the form of cable TV, cell phones, and game systems. They buy $2000.00 cars, spend thousands to paint it and modify it to accept over-sized wheels, then rent rims and tires.