The problem with religion has nothing at all to do with faith - for the most part it has to do with monotheism and the dogma around it, most notably the Abrahamic religions. All of the violence and wars throughout history caused by religion have a direct connection to monotheism because these religions invariably have as part of their dogma that there is only one true religion and it is ours.
This shows an abysmal ignorance of religions in history. There is no religion that has been immune from the human activities of war or intolerance. Monotheism in and of itself is also not the problem. Examine any pantheon and tell me; did you find what is called a god/godess of war? Would that convince you? My guess is no. You would simply claim other motivations for them such as economic that you would preclude for a monotheistic. War is about subjugation, religion is just one tool.
"at some point in those billions of unobservable years" Don't need those years, as we have watched current animals diversify without any such agency. It's up to you to provide proof that it was there, not us to prove your desires and conjectures weren't.
The mutations are the causal factors. The sources of many mutations are well known, displacement, reversal, etc. Now, if you're saying that something is controlling those mutations, have the guts to say it outright. Otherwise, provide "more detail". You seem to be trying very hard to sidestep ID as your controlling agent.
Pardon, but your kind of magic is booga-booga. You're attempting to sound scientific but what you're really doing is disguising the notion that your agency is a supernatural entity. Hence the air-quotes around random. Hence booga-booga.
Critical thinking would preclude using quotes on a highly doctored phrase. The actual follows:
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the studentâ(TM)s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
In other words, they don't mean what you attempted to portray them to mean.
"Sometimes it's easier to see things from the outside." You mean like how we in the US can see that China and Australia indoctrinate just as much, albeit differently?
No. Amazon simply said 'We don't sell ebooks at those prices, so lower or go elsewhere.' There was no attempt to prevent Hachette from going to other resellers.
One problem with trolls like this is that you can't ascertain if the spew was their actual thoughts or that of the opposition (SJW in this case) faking it to stir up resentments. I'm going with the latter because it was so over the top.
How was she dressed? How was she behaving? What does "like that" mean? You left that out of your description on purpose I believe. Vague multiple choice social questions with "only one" correct answer are traps constructed with a reason in mind.
"Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable" - bzzzt! This implies that they display the discomfort instead of internalizing, brooding and acting on it later. The dongle incident is a good example of your statement not working.
Good example - Donglegate or whatever you want to cause it. Don't believe police or prosecutors were ever involved, but the two guys were canned for cracking an third grade level joke that was simply *overheard*.
La terreur.
"How do you know?" The lack of organized public acts of terror and murder should do it. "holding up nooses which chanting death threats in front of a black person's house." This shows you're being disingenuous - you excluded the burning crosses, smashed businesses and hanged persons.
Slashdot Mirror
This shows an abysmal ignorance of religions in history. There is no religion that has been immune from the human activities of war or intolerance. Monotheism in and of itself is also not the problem. Examine any pantheon and tell me; did you find what is called a god/godess of war? Would that convince you? My guess is no. You would simply claim other motivations for them such as economic that you would preclude for a monotheistic. War is about subjugation, religion is just one tool.
As an ancient Greek noted (I can't remember or find his name) 'If all religions claim to be the one truth, why not none of them?'
First and foremost, that "something greater" should be real.
The Mule, blasphemer.
Mediterranean island lizards evolving gastric structures the original implanted lizards did not.
"at some point in those billions of unobservable years" Don't need those years, as we have watched current animals diversify without any such agency. It's up to you to provide proof that it was there, not us to prove your desires and conjectures weren't.
The mutations are the causal factors. The sources of many mutations are well known, displacement, reversal, etc. Now, if you're saying that something is controlling those mutations, have the guts to say it outright. Otherwise, provide "more detail". You seem to be trying very hard to sidestep ID as your controlling agent.
Pardon, but your kind of magic is booga-booga. You're attempting to sound scientific but what you're really doing is disguising the notion that your agency is a supernatural entity. Hence the air-quotes around random. Hence booga-booga.
Why on Earth would you presume all the tall people were originally closely related? No incest necessary.
That presumes the model they're using this year will be the one they use two years from now.
Rote memorization is central to speed of processing. To take the steps involved each and every time hinders learning the higher functions.
In other words, you didn't understand his reference and didn't look it up but relied on a third grade ad hominem to try to appear intelligent.
Critical thinking would preclude using quotes on a highly doctored phrase. The actual follows:
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the studentâ(TM)s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
In other words, they don't mean what you attempted to portray them to mean.
"Sometimes it's easier to see things from the outside." You mean like how we in the US can see that China and Australia indoctrinate just as much, albeit differently?
No. Amazon simply said 'We don't sell ebooks at those prices, so lower or go elsewhere.' There was no attempt to prevent Hachette from going to other resellers.
Friggin' hilarious.
Do you really want to live in a country where every time two people have an emotional disagreement the courts get involved? I do not.
One problem with trolls like this is that you can't ascertain if the spew was their actual thoughts or that of the opposition (SJW in this case) faking it to stir up resentments. I'm going with the latter because it was so over the top.
How was she dressed? How was she behaving? What does "like that" mean? You left that out of your description on purpose I believe. Vague multiple choice social questions with "only one" correct answer are traps constructed with a reason in mind.
Neither did the commenter.
"Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable" - bzzzt! This implies that they display the discomfort instead of internalizing, brooding and acting on it later. The dongle incident is a good example of your statement not working.
Oh please. It's the level. "Hey gorgeous" is not harassment, but some could easily persecute for it. The problem is the vagueness, not the sexuality.
Good example - Donglegate or whatever you want to cause it. Don't believe police or prosecutors were ever involved, but the two guys were canned for cracking an third grade level joke that was simply *overheard*. La terreur.
"How do you know?" The lack of organized public acts of terror and murder should do it. "holding up nooses which chanting death threats in front of a black person's house." This shows you're being disingenuous - you excluded the burning crosses, smashed businesses and hanged persons.
"shout down any opinion they dont like" - So, you're on that side?