That proves nothing. Just because you can't make something happen again doesn't mean it couldn't ever have happened. That's like saying YOU couldn't have been born because you can pair up any man and woman you please, and they won't give birth to an exact replica of YOU.
It looks like my OP is going to be modded -1 Troll anyways, since some people seem to think that there are only 2 theories: Evolution and Creationism, and that if I'm saying "Not so fast", I must be spouting creationist nonsense.
Those people are morons. "Creationism" is not a theory.
In a free society, actions or creative works are allowed until it can be compellingly shown that such actions or creative works cause demonstratable harm to society. A society that requires creators of works to justify their creations rather than society justifying the banning of these creationis is not free.
Almost correct: legally-owned automatic firearms have been used in one homicide since 1934. Incidentally, that one was a cop using his duty weapon, which would have been exempted from a ban anyway.
I'd heard about a doctor who used a legally-owned fully-automatic Uzi submachine gun to kill someone. I don't have any details though.
Gun laws in the UK have steadily become more strict since 1969.
Gun laws in the US have arguably, on average, become less strict since 1969 (a few states have asinine "Assault Weapons Bans" that demonstratably accomplish nothing, but now nearly 40 states allow for a leagal means for any law-abiding civillian to carry concealed deadly weapons, where very few allowed such a thing in 1969).
The homicide rate in the UK today is more than double what it was in 1969.
The homicide rate in the US today is much lower than what it was in 1969.
In 1969, the homicide rate of the UK was only one-ninth the homicide rate of the US.
Today, the homicide rate of the UK is one-third the homicide rate of the US.
Please don't pretend that you're making a valid point about gun control when you compare apples to oranges.
would personally rather see lots of bat crime rather than a little gun crime. Unless you're extraordinarily big, or rather unlucky, you have to really mean it to kill someone with a bat. Or even a knife for that matter. With a gun you just have to be distracted.
Knife wounds are, on average, far more lethal than wounds inflicted by handguns (the most commonly used firearm in gun crimes).
But on a more practical level, let's just get the automatics & semi-automatics out of circulation, and shit like at VA Tech won't happen.
Automatics are already tightly regulated, and there have been a total of two (maybe three) homicides where an automatic firearm was used since 1934, when those regulations went into effect. Automatic firearms are not a problem in the United States and suggesting removing them as a solution to gun crime is asinine.
Suggesting removing semiautomatics is just unreasonable and unworkable. There are far more law-abiding owners of semi-automatic firearms than there are criminals using semi-automatic firearms. Moreover, it's revolvers (specifically, cheap and easily disposable revolvers chambered in.357 and.38) that are the firearm of choice for criminals. Banning semi-automatic rifles, which account for less than 3% (and likely less than 1.5%) of all gun homicides (in a given year more people are killed with fists and feet than with all rifles -- including non-semiautomatic single-shot bolt-action rifless -- combined) in the US in any given year will have no positive effect on the crime rate, though it will turn at least 40 million US citizens (a VERY low estimate that assumes that only half of all gun owners own a semi-automatic rifle) against the politicians responsible for such a ban.
Without guns, mass-murderers will still be able to build bombs or commit arson, and they'd likely do quite a bit more damage with that. You'll just shift the method of determined psychopaths without fixing the underlying problem or saving any lives. You'll also be giving the finger to the hundreds of thousands of people per year who have successfully used firearms to defend themselves from criminals, often without having to fire a shot.
The tissue wasn't actually "soft" when found (that's a common creationist misrepresentation). It only became soft after being subjected to a rehydration process. Also, there was not a great deal of such tissue; images shown of the sample found are heavily magnified.
You're seriously telling me that paying the $200 tax stamp, undergoing a six month federal background check and paying over $10,000 (the least expensive "machine guns" start at that, because the supply of civillian-legal machine guns in the US is so low and never growing) is cheaper than buying a few games?
I think that you've stretched hyperbole beyond credibility.
I have no feelings for this Hovind fellow one way or another, but whoever put together that Geocities page doesn't understand what a "lie" is. Stating an opinion, whether or not it's at odds with common thought, is not a lie.
I do not dispute that some of the entries on Buddika's page are opinion, but you cannot deny that a number of the exposed claims from Hovind are demonstratable lies.
For example, Hovind's claim that the human Cytochrome gene is closer to that of a sunflower's than that of a chimpanzee's is a complete falsehood.
Hovind also lies about the definition of "evolution". The fundamental premise of his arguments against the theory of evolution are an outright lie. Citing him as a source of information on any subject demonstrates either personal dishonesty or abysmal ignorance. In either case, the credibilty of the individual making the reference is called into question.
An there is scientific evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old. A great website with free vids on the info http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php [drdino.com]
I am curious as to why the claims of a known liar should be considered.
" All Dell Servers and most business desktops usually have a "No OS" option (we've ordered most of ours that way), and the servers do have an option for RHEL pre-installed + RHEL subscription IIRC."
How have you obtained this option on desktops? I've asked in the past for them to keep the desktop machine OS free when ordering for work, but I was told that they cannot do this. I would love to be able to save the department a little extra money when ordering new hardware (and I'd like to get a refund on existing systems).
Also, you said that "Only the most boneheaded of creationist would disagree with adaption...". Are you unaware that the vast majority of creationists -- at least those who are vocal on the subject -- would, in fact, satisfy that criteria of 'bone-headedness'?
Because it allows for same day exchange, and usually if its defective on release do you really want to spend an additional $20 to get it shipped to the factory and wait another 2 weeks for it?
If it is defective upon release and the store sells out, there may be little recourse but to have the unit shipped to a factory for repair or replacement.
Good record like the NES front loading cartridge slot and the first generation GameCube optical drive?
I have a first generation GameCube. It has yet to fail. I haven't heard anything about problematic drives. I have heard quite a bit about failing first-generation XBox optical drives and even more about failing PS2 optical drives into generations well beyond the first.
I've always considered something a theory until it can be proven a 100%, and then its considered a fact.
In science, a "theory" is a set of statements derived from experiment and fulfulled predictions that are used to explain the cause of a set of observations. Theories are the endpoints of scientific inquiry; no scientific theory can be "proven", only potentially disproven. An explanation must achieve a high degree of confidence amongst scholars of the relevant field before it can be considered "theory".
The scam baiters are promising payment if the other party does something. A priori, that's a contract. Depending on the circumstances, it may be valid, legally binding, and even enforceable.
You are suggesting, then, that I can be legally bound to submit payment to an individual, even if that individual's request for payment is known to be fraudulent.
Getting people to tattoo themselves, or indirectly causing wood carvers to do work that the scam baiter knows won't be paid for, is doing "something bad", not just to the scammer, but also to third parties.
Why is having a scammer 'brand' themself -- of their own free will, believing that such actions will enable them to commit an act of fraud -- a "bad" thing? Your second example has not been demonstrated to have occured.
It's unwise because these people are criminals that may come after you to hurt you.
This would require that the criminal have a means of tracking the individual. In many cases, scam baiters use proxies when receiving deliveries, and only then if they actually accept any deliveries from the scammer.
And it's unwise because you may be breaking the law yourself.
To what law do you refer?
Finally, just because someone did something bad to you doesn't make it right for you to do the same to them.
The purpose of scam baiting is not to do something "bad" to the criminal. It is to waste the time and resources that would otherwise be used to victimize someone.
Slashdot Mirror
No unambiguous evidence from fossils (just claims, later quietly rejected)
This is false, and you are a liar.
No natural mechanism to make fossils as found in large beds with prey/predator together, etc.
This is false, and you are a liar.
No evidence from biological systems
This is false, and you are a liar.
No evidence from embryology
This is false, and you are a liar.
No biogenesis
This is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
No possibility from chemistry or physics
Your unsubstantiated assertion is false, and you are a liar.
No mechanisms(including mutations and natural selection)
This is false, and you are a liar.
No unambiguous evidence from homology
This unsubstantiated assertion is false, and you are a liar.
Filled with lies, deceipt, religion
Yes, your claims are.
Given your numerous lies above, why should anything that you say be considered credible?
That proves nothing. Just because you can't make something happen again doesn't mean it couldn't ever have happened. That's like saying YOU couldn't have been born because you can pair up any man and woman you please, and they won't give birth to an exact replica of YOU.
False analogy.
It looks like my OP is going to be modded -1 Troll anyways, since some people seem to think that there are only 2 theories: Evolution and Creationism, and that if I'm saying "Not so fast", I must be spouting creationist nonsense.
Those people are morons. "Creationism" is not a theory.
In a free society, actions or creative works are allowed until it can be compellingly shown that such actions or creative works cause demonstratable harm to society. A society that requires creators of works to justify their creations rather than society justifying the banning of these creationis is not free.
Almost correct: legally-owned automatic firearms have been used in one homicide since 1934. Incidentally, that one was a cop using his duty weapon, which would have been exempted from a ban anyway.
I'd heard about a doctor who used a legally-owned fully-automatic Uzi submachine gun to kill someone. I don't have any details though.
Gun laws in the UK have steadily become more strict since 1969.
Gun laws in the US have arguably, on average, become less strict since 1969 (a few states have asinine "Assault Weapons Bans" that demonstratably accomplish nothing, but now nearly 40 states allow for a leagal means for any law-abiding civillian to carry concealed deadly weapons, where very few allowed such a thing in 1969).
The homicide rate in the UK today is more than double what it was in 1969.
The homicide rate in the US today is much lower than what it was in 1969.
In 1969, the homicide rate of the UK was only one-ninth the homicide rate of the US.
Today, the homicide rate of the UK is one-third the homicide rate of the US.
Please don't pretend that you're making a valid point about gun control when you compare apples to oranges.
would personally rather see lots of bat crime rather than a little gun crime. Unless you're extraordinarily big, or rather unlucky, you have to really mean it to kill someone with a bat. Or even a knife for that matter. With a gun you just have to be distracted.
.357 and .38) that are the firearm of choice for criminals. Banning semi-automatic rifles, which account for less than 3% (and likely less than 1.5%) of all gun homicides (in a given year more people are killed with fists and feet than with all rifles -- including non-semiautomatic single-shot bolt-action rifless -- combined) in the US in any given year will have no positive effect on the crime rate, though it will turn at least 40 million US citizens (a VERY low estimate that assumes that only half of all gun owners own a semi-automatic rifle) against the politicians responsible for such a ban.
Knife wounds are, on average, far more lethal than wounds inflicted by handguns (the most commonly used firearm in gun crimes).
But on a more practical level, let's just get the automatics & semi-automatics out of circulation, and shit like at VA Tech won't happen.
Automatics are already tightly regulated, and there have been a total of two (maybe three) homicides where an automatic firearm was used since 1934, when those regulations went into effect. Automatic firearms are not a problem in the United States and suggesting removing them as a solution to gun crime is asinine.
Suggesting removing semiautomatics is just unreasonable and unworkable. There are far more law-abiding owners of semi-automatic firearms than there are criminals using semi-automatic firearms. Moreover, it's revolvers (specifically, cheap and easily disposable revolvers chambered in
Without guns, mass-murderers will still be able to build bombs or commit arson, and they'd likely do quite a bit more damage with that. You'll just shift the method of determined psychopaths without fixing the underlying problem or saving any lives. You'll also be giving the finger to the hundreds of thousands of people per year who have successfully used firearms to defend themselves from criminals, often without having to fire a shot.
The tissue wasn't actually "soft" when found (that's a common creationist misrepresentation). It only became soft after being subjected to a rehydration process. Also, there was not a great deal of such tissue; images shown of the sample found are heavily magnified.
You're seriously telling me that paying the $200 tax stamp, undergoing a six month federal background check and paying over $10,000 (the least expensive "machine guns" start at that, because the supply of civillian-legal machine guns in the US is so low and never growing) is cheaper than buying a few games?
I think that you've stretched hyperbole beyond credibility.
We already sent Sam Tyler, and he's not back yet.
I have no feelings for this Hovind fellow one way or another, but whoever put together that Geocities page doesn't understand what a "lie" is. Stating an opinion, whether or not it's at odds with common thought, is not a lie.
I do not dispute that some of the entries on Buddika's page are opinion, but you cannot deny that a number of the exposed claims from Hovind are demonstratable lies.
For example, Hovind's claim that the human Cytochrome gene is closer to that of a sunflower's than that of a chimpanzee's is a complete falsehood.
Hovind also lies about the definition of "evolution". The fundamental premise of his arguments against the theory of evolution are an outright lie. Citing him as a source of information on any subject demonstrates either personal dishonesty or abysmal ignorance. In either case, the credibilty of the individual making the reference is called into question.
An there is scientific evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old. A great website with free vids on the info http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php [drdino.com]
I am curious as to why the claims of a known liar should be considered.
And where'd it go? Don't we lose both oxygen and water each day, slipping out into space?
If you wish to employ an analogy, you should demonstrate -- mathematically -- that your analogy is valid.
" All Dell Servers and most business desktops usually have a "No OS" option (we've ordered most of ours that way), and the servers do have an option for RHEL pre-installed + RHEL subscription IIRC."
How have you obtained this option on desktops? I've asked in the past for them to keep the desktop machine OS free when ordering for work, but I was told that they cannot do this. I would love to be able to save the department a little extra money when ordering new hardware (and I'd like to get a refund on existing systems).
Adaption has been observed before. Not speciation.
Speciatian has been observed also
Also, you said that "Only the most boneheaded of creationist would disagree with adaption...". Are you unaware that the vast majority of creationists -- at least those who are vocal on the subject -- would, in fact, satisfy that criteria of 'bone-headedness'?
When did Ted Holden start posting to Slashdot?
To what org do you refer? You reference SPEWS in your subject line, but SPEWS is still up and running, and in fact was never actually put down.
You are of course aware that several companies and individuals have been placed on those lists for extremely arbitrary reasons, right?
Please provide evidence to support this claim.
Because it allows for same day exchange, and usually if its defective on release do you really want to spend an additional $20 to get it shipped to the factory and wait another 2 weeks for it?
If it is defective upon release and the store sells out, there may be little recourse but to have the unit shipped to a factory for repair or replacement.
Good record like the NES front loading cartridge slot and the first generation GameCube optical drive?
I have a first generation GameCube. It has yet to fail. I haven't heard anything about problematic drives. I have heard quite a bit about failing first-generation XBox optical drives and even more about failing PS2 optical drives into generations well beyond the first.
I've always considered something a theory until it can be proven a 100%, and then its considered a fact.
In science, a "theory" is a set of statements derived from experiment and fulfulled predictions that are used to explain the cause of a set of observations. Theories are the endpoints of scientific inquiry; no scientific theory can be "proven", only potentially disproven. An explanation must achieve a high degree of confidence amongst scholars of the relevant field before it can be considered "theory".
The parent poster was speaking of the geocentric view of the universe, not belief in a flat earth.
Moreover, a lack of factual correctness is rarely an obstacle for creationists who attack carbon dating.
The scam baiters are promising payment if the other party does something. A priori, that's a contract. Depending on the circumstances, it may be valid, legally binding, and even enforceable.
You are suggesting, then, that I can be legally bound to submit payment to an individual, even if that individual's request for payment is known to be fraudulent.
Getting people to tattoo themselves, or indirectly causing wood carvers to do work that the scam baiter knows won't be paid for, is doing "something bad", not just to the scammer, but also to third parties.
Why is having a scammer 'brand' themself -- of their own free will, believing that such actions will enable them to commit an act of fraud -- a "bad" thing? Your second example has not been demonstrated to have occured.
It's unwise because these people are criminals that may come after you to hurt you.
This would require that the criminal have a means of tracking the individual. In many cases, scam baiters use proxies when receiving deliveries, and only then if they actually accept any deliveries from the scammer.
And it's unwise because you may be breaking the law yourself.
To what law do you refer?
Finally, just because someone did something bad to you doesn't make it right for you to do the same to them.
The purpose of scam baiting is not to do something "bad" to the criminal. It is to waste the time and resources that would otherwise be used to victimize someone.