even the pope objected? The pope objects to in vitro fertilization as immoral and beneath the dignity of the human being. Why would it be surprising to anybody that this is also objected too.
Simple fact, why wouldnâ(TM)t they do this? I mean either the embryos created in-vitro are human beings and should be treated with human dignity or they are a few cells of interesting chemicals. In the first place in vitro fertilization itself if immoral , because it requires the destruction of human beings and sanitizes the creation of human persons in an unhealthy way removing it from the natural beauty within which every human person has a right to be created. Or in vitro is not immoral because all you have afterwards are some interesting chemicals. Choosing the characteristics of those chemicals is supposed to be immoral why?
In my mind the answer is obvious in vitro fertilization is itself immoral, the pope would agree. I think this hair, eye selection just makes it more obvious that what we are dealing with here are not simply , eggs, or embryos or chemicals, we are dealing with human beings who should be treated with the respect due to human beigns.
three simple examples of 'communism' come to mind.
1) the communal lives of monk and nuns ( from various faiths in many cultures). 2) the communal lives of certain religious communities ( ex: Amish) 3) neighborhood contracts, condominium boards.
all three have worked. It is interesting that the 3rd works the least well from what I've seen. If people are acting in common because they want to believe it is of value to do so , communism works well. If people are sharing and acting in common because they are forced to by a contract or a government , it doesn't seem to work as well. My guess would be because it is too hard to actually enforce a sufficient set of rules so that things run smoothly when people don't police themselves.
There are certain inherent problems with the ideology commonly called socialism and communism and capitalism respectively. But the basic problem of balancing out the individual within and against the context of the whole remains.
"This is how science progresses," he said. "Somebody comes up with a wild idea, and then they all pounce on it and kick you to death, and then you start off on another silly idea." -- the Author of the Study, Adrian Gibbs, 75,
All of this is highly variable from state to state. Last time I looked Florida would allow you to start teaching if you has a BS in the subject area while they paid for you to finish the coarses nessary to be certified as a teacher.
subject says it all. There are many trade-offs and life. Most people prefer security to freedom. Which explains both the high level of support for Bush after 9/11 ( people though he could and would keep them safe ) and the high support for Obama when the economy turns ( people thought he could. fix things so their jobs and finances would be more secure.). The fact is both of them have and/or will continue to take actions that take away much of the freedom that is promised in the constitution of this country. Obama is an expert and capitalizing on and using that fear. I guess it is sad, but at the end of the day people who do not value freedom more that safety and comfort will have no safety , no freedom and little comfort, because their fear will be used to take their freedom and without freedom the powerful will eat them like the sheep they choose to be and treat them less then the dogs under their tables
Americans stopped being a people who truly value their freedom. Really it comes down to the rise of materialism and atheism, if you donâ(TM)t believe there is such a thing as free-will, how can you believe in something like freedom. Besides re-stating the obvious RMS goals would be served best by promoting religion.
Public schools should be under the control of the school board elected by the parents. They are the ones who have the responsibility to decide what is best for the students of that school. Whether they are influenced by Christian, Muslim or wiccan ethics in that choice should be irrelevant, that is whole point of majority rule. We don't have to believe the same things we only have to agree on what we need to do so if the wiccans , Muslims, Hindus and atheist in a school all agree that banning web site abc or topic xyz from the school is a good idea. The majority wins. What difference does it make if the majority happens to be Christian in this case, Muslim in another or wiccans in a third, it is supposed to be their choice not some the federal governments. That argument of course is weakened when you start sending federal money to public school systems, which is why I oppose the use of federal and state funds to support local public schools, if the federal and state governments want to support education by sending them money , they either need to do so no string attached and let the parents be in control or not do it at all. The ACLU is responsible for creating a situation where many mainstream parents are becoming more and more uncomfortable sending their kids to public schools system. They are basically fueling prejudice and religious wars by their actions, because people an intrinsic and basic right to have control over their children's education. That right far outweighs any right to have access to information in a given format at a given location, especially when that information can be easily accessed elsewhere by anyone who has a need or desire for it.
At the end of the day they are all lumped together, because they are allies in a common cause and they recognize that they all suffer the same type of what this group categorizes as persecution. As the parent post pointed out, all of these individuals have a predilection to take actions which historically have been considered perverse and wrong. Of course the basic issue of having a right, first requires that one be 'right' about what you are fighting for, so it implies a moral stance. As a whole they basically claim that society has no business regulating where and what they do with their genitalia or how they identify themselves from as sexual perspective. Given the way the group is currently defined there is no real reason not to include people who are into bestiality or necrophilia in the group. Of course, this is why the claim that they should be treated as a minority group is utterly ridiculous. First they are not one group. You cannot define a minority group based on its actions because minority status needs to be based on something objectively measurable. This is not the case with the GLBT community which has X members and has new people that join their ranks. So I hope the ACLU looses this one. Besides that, there is a secondary rights issue being missed here. As much as people have a right to freedom of speech, other people have a right NOT TO LISTEN, and not to subsidize wrongheaded speech. If he ACLU was actually interested in civil liberties in this case they would recognize the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
That is an interesting religious argument. So you claim a person isn't a person until someone has an emotional attachment too it? I don't have any emotional attachment to you , what does that make you? Subjective personage aside, the human life-cycle begins at the same point as all other mammals , check your biology book on that one. That thing you develop a later emotional attachment too can be altered or destroyed before you ever see it. what that thing is or is not , cannot be objectively changed by your emotional attachment. In other words a fetus does not become a human, it always is a human or at least a human fetus, with fetus being a term that describes a specific state of development in a change of ongoing development. Aka embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult all of which would have the term human as an adjective because these stages are common to all mammals. Legal, definitions of what is and isn't a individual protected by law, need to at least be objectively measurable, so until you can build me an emotion-o-meter that can tell me if anyone likes a given human , I think we need a different definition and a better reason.
Does anyone really expect that Obama is any less a dictator then Bush? He is just a different kind of dictator. Bush enforced his moral view by stopping people from doing things they wanted to do ( embryonic stem cell research, war on drugs, etc) Oboma enforces his moral view by requiring people to do what he wants them to do, (remove the clause protecting physicians who perform abortions form being sued, change tax codes to make people live more green etc.) When it comes down to it Obama is worse than Bush. It's no fun to be told you can't do something you think it is morally ok or even justified, but that is after all what laws are for, there will always be disagreements. It is a full faced attack on civil liberties and freedom of religion to tell someone they have no right to object too and not provide products or services they find morally repugnant or disagreeable. You can believe there's nothing wrong with abortion all day long, but when you start telling people who believe that abortion is wrong they need to perform abortions or be punished, you have really crossed over a dangerous line.
Monetary is only one kind and sometimes the poorest measure of value. Consider social networking? What is the unit of exchange? What are the values of those transactions? Some things that are little or no monetary worth are priceless in their value. Peace, health, love/friendship, freedom, joy. No one transaction on a network can equate or be specifically related to any of these yet improving and maintaining those things is the primary thrust of nearly all human activity.
No one transaction has made me a more loving person, but the cumulative effect of many of them has given me a greater respect for humanity and life. How do you measure the value of these transactions?
To get someone involved you must first get them 'interested' to get the 'interested' they must see the activity as being a valuable way to use their time. Money is a poor motivator for science, greed makes for poor science and loss of objectivity. Objectivity is valuable, because it is a tool for seeking truth.
Value, truth, interest are all non tangibles that come from a sense of aesthetics or desire to aid others (aka philosophy/religion).
Teach people these things and then show them how science (aka the study of the world) is a useful tool in reaching these goals.
Most people are motivated by relation, and love, they seek to be loved and to love others. That is what we are. Show them where the love is and everything else useful will follow. .
I have to wonder, given that nature of the business which I suppose would cause a higher number of people with the skills to do so to have access to the equipment and possibly motive if they become disgruntled. If this wasn't an inside job of hacking. Some studies have suggested those are actually the most common breaches and hardest to protect from.
For the record North Dakota State University ( to my knowledge i graduated in 92 and haven't checked since 2001 or so) still has a full cluster of linux servers open to any students and many of the CS professors ect give programming assingment on UNIX machines. It may have something to do with the age and type of the CS program. The CS program there is run under the college of engineering and mathmatics with a strong cross component from the electrical engineering department including some cross over facualty.
feel free to improve my analogy by picking a more liberal talk show shock jockey. I don't listen to any of them Limbaugh or stern anymore. I also avoid opera and 'dr.' Phil. Maybe one of them would be a better choice. I suspect the main premise of the statement remains unchanged regardless of the concrete examples of polarizing emotion driven commentators you choose to represent opposite ends of the spectrum.
_Or_ that could just be you looking for excuses to validate your world view by looking down on people who don't believe or value what you believe and value.
Your post seems to imply that you validate most of what you know against imperial data as opposed to other peoples opinions that you trust. If you claim that to be true I can conclude only one of two possibilities: Either you are a truly exceptionally talented and intelligent individual. or you are lying , to others, and possibly yourself.
As for myself I validate more then most people do against actual objective and scientifically measurable fact.
I am capable of doing so because I have an IQ that hovers near genius level, am very good with computers, and have a lot more time to access computers then the majority of people in the industrialized, little lone the developing nations do.
Still, if I'm honest and start listing the things I believe to be fact. I'd say less then 10% of things I have directly verified with imperial data and having read multiple studies. 50% or so of what I believe to be fact is of a non-objective nature. Aka metaphysics and the rest are things I just take on 'faith' because I trust the source. Like the belief that people have landed on the moon. I've never actually gone back and watched the old new footage or read the papers that were generated or etc. I've never validated e experimentally or read the data from the experiments that established it.
We all trust different sources and society is interwoven and rises and falls based on that trust. That is why people used to value scientific objectivity. It was considered a moral obligation that scientist be honest. Of coarse, without a good underlying metaphysics there is no reason a scientist should not be dishonest, if the personal reward, justifies the personal consequences, which is a factor of how well they can obscure responsibility for scientific error.
For every Rush Limbaugh loving, ultraconservative, red-neck out there, thier is a tree hugging Howard stern wannabe, because the simple fact is that, checking your facts is an entirely unreasonable luxury beyond the capacity of most citizens.
That is the underlying reason why until we return a sense of morality, fair play , and religion to the average America pop culture which will in turn impose the same on both journalism and scientist things are only going to get worse and the holy war between the homosexual marriage (fascists) and the ultraconservative (fascist) will slowly degenerate into all out civil strife.
Community contracts and condo committees are all the problems of living in monistic life without any of the benefits, because condo micro-government are all about prestige and money rather then peace of mind and soul. Who needs the stress?
Honestly though, communism works on the small scale, if you 1) have a small self regulating group of people 2) you agree with the concepts of morality and politeness of the group you join 3) you can be reasonably assured that 1 and 2 will not change because of the rules of the group.
It fails on the large scale though, at least in the purest forms , because it is human nature to feel invested in ones 'property'.
I suppose that depends on whether you have a poor definition of omnipotent.
The straight forward definition is 'all powerful' which can be taken to mean one of two things: 1) capable of doing anything that can be done 2) capable of doing anything.
You can pretty much disprove number 2 by simple logical deduction because there are certain sentences that don't make sense if you use that definition.
like 'can omnipotent being make a lemon so sour not even said being can suck it'.
On the other hand: Definition 1 doesn't have that problem, because said being cannot violate their own nature.
My point is that ISN'T a skill that can be taught in public schools. Getting along with people you don't like or disagree with requires 'moral' and 'ethical' training, which is supposedly forbidden in the current public school environment and are better given at home. If we could get kids into the 'extra-curricular' to learn the getting along part and de-conflict that from the curricular portion of school, a lot more learning could be done in a much shorter amount of time. Also, those who are 'bright' could proceed at a fast pace, those who need more time could take it thus solving the 'mainstreaming' debate in a way that benefits everyone.
I remember reading about things like this 2 or 3 years ago that were a little more expensive.
Of coarse the real question is how does this 'purification' stack up from an environmental and economic perspective compared to say. Tap water?
I think in the industrialized nations this thing is of limited value. It is of coarse of very good value in countries where water is scarce ( read expensive ) and infrastructure limited.
Interesting that he considered Darwinism a metaphysics. As I think about it he is probably right. No reason all of the current data could not be accounted for by a construct something like.
God is actively involved continually creating the universe by causing mutations in his creatures which are then selected by the physical constants he ordained to bring about new species in a dynamic and beautiful fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
even the pope objected? The pope objects to in vitro fertilization as immoral and beneath the dignity of the human being. Why would it be surprising to anybody that this is also objected too.
Simple fact, why wouldnâ(TM)t they do this? I mean either the embryos created in-vitro are human beings and should be treated with human dignity or they are a few cells of interesting chemicals. In the first place in vitro fertilization itself if immoral , because it requires the destruction of human beings and sanitizes the creation of human persons in an unhealthy way removing it from the natural beauty within which every human person has a right to be created. Or in vitro is not immoral because all you have afterwards are some interesting chemicals. Choosing the characteristics of those chemicals is supposed to be immoral why?
In my mind the answer is obvious in vitro fertilization is itself immoral, the pope would agree.
I think this hair, eye selection just makes it more obvious that what we are dealing with here are not simply , eggs, or embryos or chemicals, we are dealing with human beings who should be treated with the respect due to human beigns.
"It's not for serious gaming, It's a toy"
?????? Aren't all game system toy's. To me it just sound like you are saying it is entertaing , which is , after all the point of a game , isn't it?
three simple examples of 'communism' come to mind.
1) the communal lives of monk and nuns ( from various faiths in many cultures).
2) the communal lives of certain religious communities ( ex: Amish)
3) neighborhood contracts, condominium boards.
all three have worked. It is interesting that the 3rd works the least well from what I've seen.
If people are acting in common because they want to believe it is of value to do so , communism works well. If people are sharing and acting in common because they are forced to by a contract or a government , it doesn't seem to work as well.
My guess would be because it is too hard to actually enforce a sufficient set of rules so that things run smoothly when people don't police themselves.
There are certain inherent problems with the ideology commonly called socialism and communism and capitalism respectively.
But the basic problem of balancing out the individual within and against the context of the whole remains.
I only know of one organization that has really proposed a lot of well though out solutions and technology certainly can help get us there.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html [vatican.va]
"This is how science progresses," he said. "Somebody comes up with a wild idea, and then they all pounce on it and kick you to death, and then you start off on another silly idea."
-- the Author of the Study, Adrian Gibbs, 75,
All of this is highly variable from state to state. Last time I looked Florida would allow you to start teaching if you has a BS in the subject area while they paid for you to finish the coarses nessary to be certified as a teacher.
subject says it all. There are many trade-offs and life. Most people prefer security to freedom.
Which explains both the high level of support for Bush after 9/11 ( people though he could and would keep them safe ) and the high support for Obama when the economy turns ( people thought he could. fix things so their jobs and finances would be more secure.). The fact is both of them have and/or will continue to take actions that take away much of the freedom that is promised in the constitution of this country. Obama is an expert and capitalizing on and using that fear.
I guess it is sad, but at the end of the day people who do not value freedom more that safety and comfort will have no safety , no freedom and little comfort, because their fear will be used to take their freedom and without freedom the powerful will eat them like the sheep they choose to be and treat them less then the dogs under their tables
Americans stopped being a people who truly value their freedom.
Really it comes down to the rise of materialism and atheism, if you donâ(TM)t believe there is such a thing as free-will, how can you believe in something like freedom.
Besides re-stating the obvious RMS goals would be served best by promoting religion.
Public schools should be under the control of the school board elected by the parents.
They are the ones who have the responsibility to decide what is best for the students of that school.
Whether they are influenced by Christian, Muslim or wiccan ethics in that choice should be irrelevant, that is whole point of majority rule. We don't have to believe the same things we only have to agree on what we need to do so if the wiccans , Muslims, Hindus and atheist in a school all agree that banning web site abc or topic xyz from the school is a good idea. The majority wins. What difference does it make if the majority happens to be Christian in this case, Muslim in another or wiccans in a third, it is supposed to be their choice not some the federal governments. That argument of course is weakened when you start sending federal money to public school systems, which is why I oppose the use of federal and state funds to support local public schools, if the federal and state governments want to support education by sending them money , they either need to do so no string attached and let the parents be in control or not do it at all. The ACLU is responsible for creating a situation where many mainstream parents are becoming more and more uncomfortable sending their kids to public schools system. They are basically fueling prejudice and religious wars by their actions, because people an intrinsic and basic right to have control over their children's education. That right far outweighs any right to have access to information in a given format at a given location, especially when that information can be easily accessed elsewhere by anyone who has a need or desire for it.
At the end of the day they are all lumped together, because they are allies in a common cause and they recognize that they all suffer the same type of what this group categorizes as persecution. As the parent post pointed out, all of these individuals have a predilection to take actions which historically have been considered perverse and wrong.
Of course the basic issue of having a right, first requires that one be 'right' about what you are fighting for, so it implies a moral stance.
As a whole they basically claim that society has no business regulating where and what they do with their genitalia or how they identify themselves from as sexual perspective.
Given the way the group is currently defined there is no real reason not to include people who are into bestiality or necrophilia in the group.
Of course, this is why the claim that they should be treated as a minority group is utterly ridiculous.
First they are not one group.
You cannot define a minority group based on its actions because minority status needs to be based on something objectively measurable.
This is not the case with the GLBT community which has X members and has new people that join their ranks. So I hope the ACLU looses this one.
Besides that, there is a secondary rights issue being missed here.
As much as people have a right to freedom of speech, other people have a right NOT TO LISTEN, and not to subsidize wrongheaded speech. If he ACLU was actually interested in civil liberties in this case they would recognize the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
That is an interesting religious argument. So you claim a person isn't a person until someone has an emotional attachment too it? I don't have any emotional attachment to you , what does that make you?
Subjective personage aside, the human life-cycle begins at the same point as all other mammals , check your biology book on that one. That thing you develop a later emotional attachment too can be altered or destroyed before you ever see it. what that thing is or is not , cannot be objectively changed by your emotional attachment. In other words a fetus does not become a human, it always is a human or at least a human fetus, with fetus being a term that describes a specific state of development in a change of ongoing development. Aka embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult all of which would have the term human as an adjective because these stages are common to all mammals.
Legal, definitions of what is and isn't a individual protected by law, need to at least be objectively measurable, so until you can build me an emotion-o-meter that can tell me if anyone likes a given human , I think we need a different definition and a better reason.
Does anyone really expect that Obama is any less a dictator then Bush? He is just a different kind of dictator.
Bush enforced his moral view by stopping people from doing things they wanted to do ( embryonic stem cell research, war on drugs, etc)
Oboma enforces his moral view by requiring people to do what he wants them to do, (remove the clause protecting physicians who perform abortions form being sued, change tax codes to make people live more green etc.)
When it comes down to it Obama is worse than Bush. It's no fun to be told you can't do something you think it is morally ok or even justified, but that is after all what laws are for, there will always be disagreements. It is a full faced attack on civil liberties and freedom of religion to tell someone they have no right to object too and not provide products or services they find morally repugnant or disagreeable.
You can believe there's nothing wrong with abortion all day long, but when you start telling people who believe that abortion is wrong they need to perform abortions or be punished, you have really crossed over a dangerous line.
Monetary is only one kind and sometimes the poorest measure of value.
Consider social networking? What is the unit of exchange? What are the values of those transactions?
Some things that are little or no monetary worth are priceless in their value.
Peace, health, love/friendship, freedom, joy. No one transaction on a network can equate or be specifically related to any of these
yet improving and maintaining those things is the primary thrust of nearly all human activity.
No one transaction has made me a more loving person, but the cumulative effect of many of them has given
me a greater respect for humanity and life. How do you measure the value of these transactions?
To get someone involved you must first get them 'interested' to get the 'interested' they must see the activity as being a valuable way to use their time. Money is a poor motivator for science, greed makes for poor science and loss of objectivity. Objectivity is valuable, because it is a tool for seeking truth.
Value, truth, interest are all non tangibles that come from a sense of aesthetics or desire to aid others (aka philosophy/religion).
Teach people these things and then show them how science (aka the study of the world) is a useful tool in reaching these goals.
Most people are motivated by relation, and love, they seek to be loved and to love others. That is what we are. Show them where the love is and everything else useful will follow.
.
I have to wonder, given that nature of the business which I suppose would cause a higher number of people with the skills to do so to have access to the equipment and possibly motive if they become disgruntled. If this wasn't an inside job of hacking. Some studies have suggested those are actually the most common breaches and hardest to protect from.
I can't believe it's not here already. But I always preferred the orginization.
People for the eating of tasty animals.
For the record North Dakota State University ( to my knowledge i graduated in 92 and haven't checked since 2001 or so) still has a full cluster of linux servers open to any students and many of the CS professors ect give programming assingment on UNIX machines. It may have something to do with the age and type of the CS program. The CS program there is run under the college of engineering and mathmatics with a strong cross component from the electrical engineering department including some cross over facualty.
eye love hell peckers aka spell checkers ;)
lydexics of the world untie.
Alas, high IQ AND poor spelling are normal attributes of dyslexia.
feel free to improve my analogy by picking a more liberal talk show shock jockey. I don't listen to any of them Limbaugh or stern anymore. I also avoid opera and 'dr.' Phil. Maybe one of them would be a better choice. I suspect the main premise of the statement remains unchanged regardless of the concrete examples of polarizing emotion driven commentators you choose to represent opposite ends of the spectrum.
_Or_ that could just be you looking for excuses to validate your world view by looking down on people who don't believe or value what you believe and value.
Your post seems to imply that you validate most of what you know against imperial data as opposed to other peoples opinions that you trust. If you claim that to be true I can conclude only one of two possibilities:
Either you are a truly exceptionally talented and intelligent individual.
or you are lying , to others, and possibly yourself.
As for myself I validate more then most people do against actual objective and scientifically measurable fact.
I am capable of doing so because I have an IQ that hovers near genius level, am very good with computers, and have a lot more time to access computers then the majority of people in the industrialized, little lone the developing nations do.
Still, if I'm honest and start listing the things I believe to be fact.
I'd say less then 10% of things I have directly verified with imperial data and having read multiple studies. 50% or so of what I believe to be fact is of a non-objective nature. Aka metaphysics and the rest are things I just take on 'faith' because I trust the source. Like the belief that people have landed on the moon. I've never actually gone back and watched the old new footage or read the papers that were generated or etc. I've never validated e experimentally or read the data from the experiments that established it.
We all trust different sources and society is interwoven and rises and falls based on that trust. That is why people used to value scientific objectivity. It was considered a moral obligation that scientist be honest. Of coarse, without a good underlying metaphysics there is no reason a scientist should not be dishonest, if the personal reward, justifies the personal consequences, which is a factor of how well they can obscure responsibility for scientific error.
For every Rush Limbaugh loving, ultraconservative, red-neck out there, thier is a tree hugging Howard stern wannabe, because the simple fact is that, checking your facts is an entirely unreasonable luxury beyond the capacity of most citizens.
That is the underlying reason why until we return a sense of morality, fair play , and religion to the average America pop culture which will in turn impose the same on both journalism and scientist things are only going to get worse and the holy war between the homosexual marriage (fascists) and the ultraconservative (fascist) will slowly degenerate into all out civil strife.
Community contracts and condo committees are all the problems of living in monistic life without any of the benefits, because condo micro-government are all about prestige and money rather then peace of mind and soul. Who needs the stress?
Honestly though, communism works on the small scale, if you
1) have a small self regulating group of people
2) you agree with the concepts of morality and politeness of the group you join
3) you can be reasonably assured that 1 and 2 will not change because of the rules of the group.
It fails on the large scale though, at least in the purest forms , because it is human nature to feel invested in ones 'property'.
This is a pre-history of marvin and these robots are some of his earily ancestors.
I suppose that depends on whether you have a poor definition of omnipotent.
The straight forward definition is 'all powerful' which can be taken to mean one of two things:
1) capable of doing anything that can be done
2) capable of doing anything.
You can pretty much disprove number 2 by simple logical deduction because there are
certain sentences that don't make sense if you use that definition.
like 'can omnipotent being make a lemon so sour not even said being can suck it'.
On the other hand:
Definition 1 doesn't have that problem, because said being cannot violate their own nature.
My point is that ISN'T a skill that can be taught in public schools. Getting along with people you don't like or disagree with requires 'moral' and 'ethical' training, which is supposedly forbidden in the current public school environment and are better given at home. If we could get kids into the 'extra-curricular' to learn the getting along part and de-conflict that from the curricular portion of school, a lot more learning could be done in a much shorter amount of time. Also, those who are 'bright' could proceed at a fast pace, those who need more time could take it thus solving the 'mainstreaming' debate in a way that benefits everyone.
I remember reading about things like this 2 or 3 years ago that were a little more expensive.
Of coarse the real question is how does this 'purification' stack up from an environmental and economic perspective compared to say. Tap water?
I think in the industrialized nations this thing is of limited value. It is of coarse of very good value in countries where water is scarce ( read expensive ) and infrastructure limited.
Interesting that he considered Darwinism a metaphysics. As I think about it he is probably right. No reason all of the current data could not be accounted for by a construct something like.
God is actively involved continually creating the universe by causing mutations in his creatures which are then selected by the physical constants he ordained to bring about new species in a dynamic and beautiful fashion.