The brain patterns in a dog chasing a ball through the air is no different then the dog chasing a cat. They are simply watching the object and attempting to get ahead of it. There is no special thought process and there is no cognitive reasoning going on concerning the ball being in the air.
I don't need evidence the information came from anywhere. I showed that it is there written down at least 1500 years if not 10 centuries before science knew about micro organisms. And no, it's not a strawman and if you read the shit, you would know why.
I realise now I was rather foolish to ask an IDer to cite evidence...
Yes, it is foolish of you to expect me to do your homework when you are behind because you had your own head in the sand. If you would have been paying attention, you would know this is the key issue surrounding education and creation.
Which exemplifies how you would rather get people to believe - not by examining evidence, but by repeating without question something they are told.
Actually, it's more like needing to un-brainwash you in order for you to accept the evidence as it stands and not as your misconceived notions.
Speciation, and hence macroevolution, has been observed. Check out talk.origins.
Read all of what I said. Fuck, you even quoted it. And no, speciation has not been observed unless the definition of species is altered. You can check both of them out at talk origins and in the part you quoted of me. And yes, these misapplications of species break horrible if applied generically to everything and not the specific event they are attempting to make the claim about.
Your views are certainly incompatible with the scientific consensus, as supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.
No they are not. Science doesn't speak of religion period. Religion is not science and science is not religion except when people like you attempt to make it so.
Actually I was just hoping you were practicing your skills on Slashdot before moving onto somewhere like RichardDawkins.net. Poe's Law strikes again.
No, I'm pretty sure it is your reading comprehension. Not only have you misses key information in the article and the story summery, you have missed key information in my post and attempted to make something I said sound like something you wanted me to say. If you would pay attention, I think your entire world views will change dramatically. Sadly, I'm not sure you are capable of doing that and you will forever remain stupid.
So when it says to wash the scabs regularly or burn the clothing that was touching it, that's nothing more then a Don't do this.
Like I said, you obviously have not read the bible and do not understand it and are not qualified to talk about it.
An no, the dog doesn't know the ball will come down, he just watches the ball and runs after it. He can tell it is coming at him but that's about it. And yes, the same brain patterns seen when chasing an object are present when the ball is thrown. The dog does no more thinking then when chasing a cat or something.
You have to understand a few things. One is that a lot of the new testament was destroyed by Nero but we have manuscript versions of it dating to the mid 1st century. Now those are copies by were dated by some very scientific means in the analysis of script writing. The other is how religion was operating at the time. They memorized the stories or books and repeated them in public. Everyone memorized them and when someone got them wrong, it was immediately corrected to preserve the accuracy of them. Finally, much of the bible is composed of letters Paul wrote throughout the years. Some of those letters are questioned to their authenticity while some are completely accepted.
re: lots of cash, "lots of cash" to an individual going through bankruptcy is a lot different than "lots of cash" to a large company. that's kind of the crux of the problem: very rich people can drive large companies into bankruptcy, avoid their obligations, and yet remain rich. That's a peversion, frankly. also that's why the company might need a loan even though the board or CEO has "lots of cash". or the govt might just be incentiving certain actions which, again, if you're going to actually follow through on it might not be such a big deal to take on the personal obligation.
Sort of. They can't intentionally drive the company into bankruptcy and need to make and effort to avoid it. Otherwise the people running it will be liable civily as well as criminally for it. Corporate separation does not remove any fiduciary duties to the company or other share holders and it doesn't isolate you from your own actions.
my company has specifically avoided bradstreet and dunn because we have not historically taken on debt beyond the normal net 30 terms with vendors, we've been strictly cash otherwise. however having avoided that whole section of business I was also unaware of how other people actually use it, since no one asks if we even have a number except on very rare occasions. thanks for the lesson on that. I would say that the government at least shouldn't care about credit ratings so much: it should care about getting the results its paying for regardless of the financial rating of the company.
I too was at first confused and blindsided on that when a vendor asked me for the number when opening an account with them. I bet more of your vendors use it then you actually realize. When my numbers started improving, even without increasing business, my main vendor doped a price point on me and I started getting larger discounts with the same volume of orders. That may not happen with every vendor but it is another reason to piss around with it.
i'll concede it's pretty complicated and that I'm not informed enough to "fix it" though.. you make some good points that I'll need to think more about.
Corporate taxes are pretty steep once you start making over a certain amount of money. Take Exxon for instance, they profited roughly 48 billion dollars in 2006-2007 and paid 43-44 billion in taxes. They reported an effective tax rate of 44% for that year. That's with all the subsidies and so on too. I discovered this when I was looking at their profit statements and SEC filings in order to see how much they were gouging us at the pump. Now 40 billion dollars seems like a lot of money but to put it in perspective, Exxon operates in 5 different countries and sells to 25 other, the make motor oil, diesel, and other fuels as well as chemicals and so on. If you went by the gasoline sales alone for the same year, their entire profit averages out to about 20 cents on the gallon.
Anyways, after paying 40 billion in taxes for one year and being in business for several years like that, if they couldn't pay to clean up some field, I don't have a problem with the government stepping in and do something about it. There are some companies who when it is known they will pollute, have to set up a trust accounts and make payments to it to ensure funding will be there for the cleanup. I used to work for a company like that when I was in the Environmental services industry and did a lot of the clean up of spills and contaminated sites. We did mostly petroleum contamination remediation but also dealt with about anything in an emergency spill. An example of a company that has to pay into a trust for cleanup is electric generation facilities. If they are nuclear, they pay into a nuclear fund each year over the life of the plant. If they are coal or gas, they pay into another trust they set up as they operate.
As was the problem with GM, the sites that are polluted were considered polluted when it happened. Laws changed and our standards have increased and what was once acceptable is now not. Things like heave metal pollution and paint chemicals and some stuff just wasn't considered as a pollutant years ago.
You missed the part where I was saying IF.. IF.. IF the companies had taken money.. for instance, as a loan to clean up pollution... then this sort of thing could have been written in as a part of the repayment agreement.
I am not saying the government could just willy nilly impose these kinds of sanctions that had not be agreed upon in the first place. I hope you got that by the end of your response.
No, I didn't miss it, I said they would have to agree to it and it couldn't be forced on them by the government or a bankruptcy court. I don't know anyone who would voluntarily submit to that kind of loan when the idea of a corporation already removes those burdens. It would be much easier for them to default on the clean up and stick the government with the bill anyways.
As for personally guaranteeing debts, I can say as the owner of a small company, if your stance is that you will never personally guarantee the debts of the company you run, then you wouldn't get very far in small business. Every time we have a line of credit with a vendor that's a clause of the agreement. Something similar for larger companies... obviously not for the full value of any damages or what have you, but certainly large enough sums to be motivational.. shouldn't be any problem for a company that intends to actually follow the rules it is agreeing to. If they do not, then why should the top earners profit from their deception?
As an owner of a small business, once your bradstreet and dunn rating is high enough, you do not have to guarantee any loans. Maybe you should work on that. Anyways, there is a difference between vouching to a creditor to run your business then to accept liability for repayment of something when going through a bankruptcy (like GM). You can also just default on the cleanup and be done with it. Chances are, if you are too poor to pay for the clean up, you are probably going to file bankruptcy anyways when the lawsuits come in.
There are reasons to do it of course. For instance, if I am a CEO who gets paid in stock value, and my company is given a grant or low interest low to, say, clean up the pollution we created, that would help out my stock value. Or, it would certainly reduce a liability and increase the valuation of the company, its profitability, whatever metric you want to use to determine by pay, it's a good thing typically. I could get good benefit signing such an agreement, if I do it in good faith. However, I can't then get a double benefit by taking the money and spending it on something else! That's what appears to happen now.
Not really. You are working under the assumption that stock values will rise with what you think is good. It doesn't always work that way. It may be easier to just dump the stock and stiff the cleanup. However, you will have a fiduciary duty to not lose money in the process if it's legal to avoid. I do not know why anyone would do such a thing when the laws already separate you from it.
Now, I could as a small owner declare personal bankruptcy as well.. and if my company went down laden with massive debt, I would probably have to. But it's hard to go bankrupt with lots, and lots of cash. not impossible of course, but harder.
Here is the problem, if you have lots and lots of cash, then why would you need a loan? If the clean up is going to be more then you have, just spend what you got then bankruptcy your way out of it. Or you could use assets as collateral and get a loan that you do not have to worry about being personally responsible for.
Now I guess we need to get something clear here. It is and has been illegal to pollute for many years. If you started a company last week that polluted this week, you may need to clean it up to avoid jail time for your actions. However, if the act was legal when it was done (like with GM) then the cleanup is
But this is all beside the point, really, in a discussion of the validity of ID as opposed to other, better models. Because in science, proof is not what we're looking for. We're looking for extreme likelihood, as in 99% certainty. Even this may be fallible, but it's worked better than any other system at uncovering the workings of the universe.
Finally, someone I can agree with. I guess the problem I have is when people say "this is fact" and are unbending in their determination to keep it that way even though it's built into the scientific method, the ability for that to change. It's as if science somehow stopped doing science.
Now there are some areas that do have some issues in which the science isn't really 98% there but it works well enough for other areas to build from. An example of this is in Quantum mechanics in which the known world seems to function a little differently then we know it.
So your point is certainly valid, if academic. It may be true that science can't "prove" evolution or the extreme age of the Earth, but by that token it can't prove 100% to anyone else on/. that you're real and not some Turing Test beating simulation, or that the world outside our houses is real and not some variation on the Matrix. For all I know, given the extent to which I've checked for verification,/. exists nowhere besides in my computer. But we'd all be very ignorant, deranged people if we gave serious credence to these ideas, even if there's a lingering 0.00001% chance one or more of them is true. People who avoid this kind of derangement are not following their "opinions," but rather those answers most highly likely to be true. Calling this "opinion" is an abuse of the language and a misunderstanding of science.
Well, no, we wouldn't be very ignorant to entertain those ideas. The pursuit of knowledge means we sort of have to or we will limit out abilities to understand and develop more knowledge. Now it is perfectly reasonable to not pay particular attention to things that you are confident in so I'm not saying we have to wonder if we are in some matrix style simulation or not. But when you start arbitrarily dismissing things- you pose the risk of missing everything. We can see this in practice with the history of man made flight and three axis control surface development. Certain things were dismissed because birds didn't do it and flight escaped us for the longest time until the wright brothers realize we are not birds and sought out to solve the problems for how they saw them.
That's retarded. The only reference to anything like this that I can find is this page [s8int.com] which makes the argument that a certain piece of aztec art bears a resemblance to a tyrannosaurus skull. So yeah... hardly pervasive and hardly convincing to anyone who doesn't already desperately want to believe.
fuck, are you using big or something? Because Google presented a crap load on a simple search for artifacts depicting dinosaurs.
No we haven't. The young earth grand canyon meme is debunked nicely here. It also doesn't stand up to some basic critical thinking skills, like if flash flooding carved the grand canyon, how come it left relatively fragile islands of rock standing up in the middle of the canyon in places?
That doesn't debunk anything. It's out dated too. But hey, don't let that stop you. Anyways, check out this, and look for the canyons created by Mt St hellens eruption when dams burst as well as the one in south carolina that happened during/result of a flood. As for the rock islands, the massive flood theories do not damage their existence. They were present in the flood simulations (using actual water and sediment) in the original Nova program. BTW, Nova is not really a creation science organization, your probably not going to be able to discredit them because of a simple god connection.
In order to believe young earth creationism, or ANY kind of age for the earth that's not in the millions or billions of years, you essentially have to throw away a ton of accepted knowledge, like how radioactive isotopes work, how sedimentation happens, plate tectonics, and so on. This includes things that are not only accepted but practically acted upon.
No you don't. You would have to change the relevence of the knowledge, that all. But I'm not asking you to believe the world is not millions or billions of years old. I'm asking you to view the evidence for what it is, support for an interpretation and not a fact that can't be disproven.
Basically science and technology are like a giant pyramid with the coolest crap on top. You can't accept the stuff on top, like say the GPS in your car or a radioisotope powered pacemaker, without implicitly allowing for the fact that all or most of the stuff beneath it is true, like the age of the earth.
See, here is where you are wrong. Have you ever heard the expression "there is more then one way to skin a cat"? Just because something is known to work one way doesn't mean it is the only way or the true way. We make batteries in about 30 different types of processes. we have roughly 50 different types of internal combustion engines and engined that don't run on combustion at all. We can make hydrogen though approximately 15 or more different ways. What you have to understand just because something fits, doesn't mean it happened like that and at any time, evidence could come along to change the entire understanding of what happened. And when you deny that possibility, you have stop doing science and started a religion or something.
Citation needed - which US schools, that children were required to attend, were teaching that God doesn't exist or that religion is false?
I don't need to cite anything. If you had been paying attention instead of only caring about people believing that evolution as stated today is fact and will never change, you would have seen where this is happening and the reasons why religions are attempting to muck around the science classes.
This is being done by poorly trained science teachers who like you, need some help.
The only case this might indirectly apply is when it comes to the falsifiable disproven beliefs (e.g., the story of Genesis). When it comes to the ones that can't be disproven, I know of no school that has claimed they are false.
First of all, science never has disproved Genesis. It can't do that at all. Second, what science did was provide a concept that allows other aspects of theories fit into place. These theories are supported by evidence but are not fact and can change when a better explanation comes along, even if it is a magical man in the clouds waving his hands and the evidence shows it.
Evolution is a fact, and the fact of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution.
repeat after me. Evolution is not fact, evolution is not fact, evolution is just the best explaination we have come up with that seems to fit the evidence we have found. Evolution can also be split into two categories, macro and micro, with the difference being a real speciation. We have never observed speciation unless we butcher the definition of species and add artificial restrictions. Unfortunately, they restrictions do not hold true when generically applied. This is true despite your biased website pushing evolution over anything else or your clear misunderstanding of science.
But hang on - if you really believed that science isn't incompatible with religion, why did you try to discredit scientific facts (that have overwhelming amounts of evidence supporting them, btw)? If your religion is incompatible with scientific facts such as evolution or the big bang, then it's no longer true to say that science can't disprove it!
Science isn't incompatible with religion, it is just one avenue of understanding that may or may not agree with religion. But science doesn't do religion except for people who seem to have made science their religion and believe everything to be more then what it is (hmm.. Like you). And no, I did not ever attempt to discredit scientific facts. I put them in their proper understanding and perspective which you are failing at.
Fairly good post btw, but could do better. Maybe we'll see improvement in your other 9 posts.
I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it? The article said the posts had to be on Hostile websites. While there are idiots and hostile people on slashdot (me probably being one of them), it is not hostile to religion and wouldn't qualify. But this is a good thing, now you know where your flaws are and can work on them to become a better person.
Obviously you never read the Bible. That's ok, you don't need to. But you are also not qualified to comment on it because of this.
The rules were there with the conceptions of how micro organisms traveled and the rules reflected a lot more then you are giving credit for. Science is the attempt to understand the natural world around us. The rules in the bible said there was a problem, science showed us what the problem was. How you equate that to a dog catching a ball I will never know. But your analogy is way off because the dog doesn't know the ball will come back down, it watches it and that point is even moot because we are talking about micro organisms that won't be seen by the human eye for centuries later.
There are more rules then those that pertain to jews. Rules about women after birth and when she it on her monthly cycle, about leprosy, about a lot of things. Most of those rules are best practices today in handling those conditions.
SO your wanting religion to be science now, but this thread is about religion interfering with science.
I gave an example, you obviously didn't read it or even come close to understanding it because there is more then just washing. Religion set rules to live by that dealt with specific contagious diseases and gave ways to address it that are still best practices today minus the modern medicine.
What you are forgetting is that evidence forms our opinions but does not prove anything. In fact, Science doesn't really prove anything besides the possibilities of something.
Now I never asserted the world was only 6012 years old, I just asserted that you prove it wasn't, only that we think it's older.
There are no fossils that are proven to be older then 6000 years without making assumptions about them which could be incorrect. Even radio carbon dating which is only accurate to about 26,000 before present relies on assumptions about perfect environment and no contamination. It's possible to say it's likely this is older then a certain age, but it's not a fact that it is. And no, just because we treat our assumed age and a fact in factoring other things, it does not make it a fact.
Proof as in this is a fact. Sure there is all kinds of evidence support the idea but the evidence is not proof- it is just evidence to support an idea.
there is evidence that can suggest a much shorter time too
Such as?
Such as what? You mean the ancient cultures like the Aztecs who have dinosaurs on their garments and pottery and jewelry despite being thousands of years older then our current understanding of dinosaurs or what they look like. I suppose that is just coincidence. Anyways, we have seen with flash flooding and dam bursting that much of the geological formations like the Grand Cannon, the dead sea, and the badlands can be caused over extremely short periods of time in like days and weeks. That's just one, Fossil collections at some sites are another, sedimentary rings and rock formation in various parts of the world are others.
You should really look into it. It's not exactly going to say the earth is 6000 years old, but it will force you to keep an open mind on the millions being claimed.
Again an unnecessary attack against my grandpa... such childish behavior dude. Demonstrates that you are attempting to flame, yet failing.
Yes, I am attempting to flame you now because you refuse to leave. BTW, you are the one who said your Gandfather was a cowards helping jews, homosexuals, and himself escape.
If you don't support indiscriminate murderous killing then you can't support the USA Government and it's actions in doing indiscriminate murders of innocents euphemistically known as "collateral damage". By supporting them you are a mass murderer. It really is that simple.
Here is where you fail miserably. There is nothing indiscriminate about the fucking killing. You do no even know what the word means. I told you to look it up, said that there was nothing indiscriminate going on and asked you to show where there was if you though so. Like every fucking thing else of relevance, you ignored it. and you are ignoring it because your entire cowardly argument fall a fucking part as soon as you start addressing the facts.,
It matters not what you think of me sumdumass, what matters are the facts in objective reality where you are a mass murderer and a supporter of mass murder by your Government.
Yea, keep ignoring reality..
Blockquote> SumDumAss, your desires are 100% irrelevant. What matters is what actions you take and what groups and political policies you support! By supporting mass murder you thus become, already are, a mass murderer. By supporting the mass murder of your government you are giving permission for those that they attack to attack you back - basic international law.
Blah Blah Blah. Can you say that after paying fucking attention to the facts? Nope, you can only say that while ignoring everything. Like I said, go fuck your cowardly grandpa or something.
They were written as in any written history of the time. The letters from paul are actually the same letters that are in the bible.
IF by well after the fact, you mean weeks and years later, yes, they were written after the fact. If you mean after the fact as in generations later, well, you couldn't be more wrong. It is true that copies that survive today are centuries old, but their authenticity has been traced back to the times of Jesus and the first century through a scientific process called Paleography.
Not really. Science can suggest alternatives but it cannot prove it. The age of the world is only longer then 6000 years because we want to understand it that way, not because any proof that exists. Now there is evidence that fits into place with out current understanding but then again, there is evidence that can suggest a much shorter time too.
Actually, no, it was intended to be an accurate reflection of the bible. Look into the laws of Moses and some of the early laws in the bible. It specifically talked about treatment for lepers and so on and knowing what we know now, deals with germs and cleanliness. Science didn't really pick this up until the 1850's with the works of Leeuwenhoek and Pasteur.
In fact, Louis Pasteur's work on puerperal fever was mostly outlined in the bible with the treatment of women on the period and just after giving birth (which referred to the period). If you ignore the sacrifices and look into the washing, burning of contaminated cloths and so on, you can find quite a few references to micro-organisms in Leviticus as well as a few other places.
Much of the bible was written by the main participants. Very little is different from older versions and as which is true with the Jewish religion (remember Jesus was a Jew), the bible was studied by the leaders of the community and verbally passed down and when changes were seen, those people were corrected and the stories remained the same.
About the only parts of the bible which could be different would be the new testament. However, it's relatively the same except for a few lacking pieces since the oldest copy we know. It's unlikely that it was changed to further some agenda unless it was the agenda outlined in the bible.
I don't disagree with the breakup of ATT. However, that was not because of providing competition. In the markets they served, they still had explicit control and was the single provider for many years. What the government did there was prevent an abuse and a consequence of that was more competition if not just at first on the long distance side.
As for capitalism providing competition, the theories on that are sort of irrelevant when you consider the structure and role of the government. It may not be a perfect system but as I mentioned our government doesn't have the authority to do much more then stop abuses. We are a reactive society in this situation.
Slashdot Mirror
His point was wrong.
The brain patterns in a dog chasing a ball through the air is no different then the dog chasing a cat. They are simply watching the object and attempting to get ahead of it. There is no special thought process and there is no cognitive reasoning going on concerning the ball being in the air.
I don't need evidence the information came from anywhere. I showed that it is there written down at least 1500 years if not 10 centuries before science knew about micro organisms. And no, it's not a strawman and if you read the shit, you would know why.
Yes, it is foolish of you to expect me to do your homework when you are behind because you had your own head in the sand. If you would have been paying attention, you would know this is the key issue surrounding education and creation.
Actually, it's more like needing to un-brainwash you in order for you to accept the evidence as it stands and not as your misconceived notions.
Read all of what I said. Fuck, you even quoted it. And no, speciation has not been observed unless the definition of species is altered. You can check both of them out at talk origins and in the part you quoted of me. And yes, these misapplications of species break horrible if applied generically to everything and not the specific event they are attempting to make the claim about.
No they are not. Science doesn't speak of religion period. Religion is not science and science is not religion except when people like you attempt to make it so.
No, I'm pretty sure it is your reading comprehension. Not only have you misses key information in the article and the story summery, you have missed key information in my post and attempted to make something I said sound like something you wanted me to say. If you would pay attention, I think your entire world views will change dramatically. Sadly, I'm not sure you are capable of doing that and you will forever remain stupid.
So when it says to wash the scabs regularly or burn the clothing that was touching it, that's nothing more then a Don't do this.
Like I said, you obviously have not read the bible and do not understand it and are not qualified to talk about it.
An no, the dog doesn't know the ball will come down, he just watches the ball and runs after it. He can tell it is coming at him but that's about it. And yes, the same brain patterns seen when chasing an object are present when the ball is thrown. The dog does no more thinking then when chasing a cat or something.
You have to understand a few things. One is that a lot of the new testament was destroyed by Nero but we have manuscript versions of it dating to the mid 1st century. Now those are copies by were dated by some very scientific means in the analysis of script writing. The other is how religion was operating at the time. They memorized the stories or books and repeated them in public. Everyone memorized them and when someone got them wrong, it was immediately corrected to preserve the accuracy of them. Finally, much of the bible is composed of letters Paul wrote throughout the years. Some of those letters are questioned to their authenticity while some are completely accepted.
Sort of. They can't intentionally drive the company into bankruptcy and need to make and effort to avoid it. Otherwise the people running it will be liable civily as well as criminally for it. Corporate separation does not remove any fiduciary duties to the company or other share holders and it doesn't isolate you from your own actions.
I too was at first confused and blindsided on that when a vendor asked me for the number when opening an account with them. I bet more of your vendors use it then you actually realize. When my numbers started improving, even without increasing business, my main vendor doped a price point on me and I started getting larger discounts with the same volume of orders. That may not happen with every vendor but it is another reason to piss around with it.
Corporate taxes are pretty steep once you start making over a certain amount of money. Take Exxon for instance, they profited roughly 48 billion dollars in 2006-2007 and paid 43-44 billion in taxes. They reported an effective tax rate of 44% for that year. That's with all the subsidies and so on too. I discovered this when I was looking at their profit statements and SEC filings in order to see how much they were gouging us at the pump. Now 40 billion dollars seems like a lot of money but to put it in perspective, Exxon operates in 5 different countries and sells to 25 other, the make motor oil, diesel, and other fuels as well as chemicals and so on. If you went by the gasoline sales alone for the same year, their entire profit averages out to about 20 cents on the gallon.
Anyways, after paying 40 billion in taxes for one year and being in business for several years like that, if they couldn't pay to clean up some field, I don't have a problem with the government stepping in and do something about it. There are some companies who when it is known they will pollute, have to set up a trust accounts and make payments to it to ensure funding will be there for the cleanup. I used to work for a company like that when I was in the Environmental services industry and did a lot of the clean up of spills and contaminated sites. We did mostly petroleum contamination remediation but also dealt with about anything in an emergency spill. An example of a company that has to pay into a trust for cleanup is electric generation facilities. If they are nuclear, they pay into a nuclear fund each year over the life of the plant. If they are coal or gas, they pay into another trust they set up as they operate.
As was the problem with GM, the sites that are polluted were considered polluted when it happened. Laws changed and our standards have increased and what was once acceptable is now not. Things like heave metal pollution and paint chemicals and some stuff just wasn't considered as a pollutant years ago.
ohh... and your opinion matters so much to me. I like your substance on your posts too, it intrigues me, can I subscribe to your news letter?
No, I didn't miss it, I said they would have to agree to it and it couldn't be forced on them by the government or a bankruptcy court. I don't know anyone who would voluntarily submit to that kind of loan when the idea of a corporation already removes those burdens. It would be much easier for them to default on the clean up and stick the government with the bill anyways.
As an owner of a small business, once your bradstreet and dunn rating is high enough, you do not have to guarantee any loans. Maybe you should work on that. Anyways, there is a difference between vouching to a creditor to run your business then to accept liability for repayment of something when going through a bankruptcy (like GM). You can also just default on the cleanup and be done with it. Chances are, if you are too poor to pay for the clean up, you are probably going to file bankruptcy anyways when the lawsuits come in.
Not really. You are working under the assumption that stock values will rise with what you think is good. It doesn't always work that way. It may be easier to just dump the stock and stiff the cleanup. However, you will have a fiduciary duty to not lose money in the process if it's legal to avoid. I do not know why anyone would do such a thing when the laws already separate you from it.
Here is the problem, if you have lots and lots of cash, then why would you need a loan? If the clean up is going to be more then you have, just spend what you got then bankruptcy your way out of it. Or you could use assets as collateral and get a loan that you do not have to worry about being personally responsible for.
Now I guess we need to get something clear here. It is and has been illegal to pollute for many years. If you started a company last week that polluted this week, you may need to clean it up to avoid jail time for your actions. However, if the act was legal when it was done (like with GM) then the cleanup is
Finally, someone I can agree with. I guess the problem I have is when people say "this is fact" and are unbending in their determination to keep it that way even though it's built into the scientific method, the ability for that to change. It's as if science somehow stopped doing science.
Now there are some areas that do have some issues in which the science isn't really 98% there but it works well enough for other areas to build from. An example of this is in Quantum mechanics in which the known world seems to function a little differently then we know it.
Well, no, we wouldn't be very ignorant to entertain those ideas. The pursuit of knowledge means we sort of have to or we will limit out abilities to understand and develop more knowledge. Now it is perfectly reasonable to not pay particular attention to things that you are confident in so I'm not saying we have to wonder if we are in some matrix style simulation or not. But when you start arbitrarily dismissing things- you pose the risk of missing everything. We can see this in practice with the history of man made flight and three axis control surface development. Certain things were dismissed because birds didn't do it and flight escaped us for the longest time until the wright brothers realize we are not birds and sought out to solve the problems for how they saw them.
So I guess this page and this page and this page and quite a bit more just don't exist now do they?
fuck, are you using big or something? Because Google presented a crap load on a simple search for artifacts depicting dinosaurs.
That doesn't debunk anything. It's out dated too. But hey, don't let that stop you. Anyways, check out this, and look for the canyons created by Mt St hellens eruption when dams burst as well as the one in south carolina that happened during/result of a flood. As for the rock islands, the massive flood theories do not damage their existence. They were present in the flood simulations (using actual water and sediment) in the original Nova program. BTW, Nova is not really a creation science organization, your probably not going to be able to discredit them because of a simple god connection.
No you don't. You would have to change the relevence of the knowledge, that all. But I'm not asking you to believe the world is not millions or billions of years old. I'm asking you to view the evidence for what it is, support for an interpretation and not a fact that can't be disproven.
See, here is where you are wrong. Have you ever heard the expression "there is more then one way to skin a cat"? Just because something is known to work one way doesn't mean it is the only way or the true way. We make batteries in about 30 different types of processes. we have roughly 50 different types of internal combustion engines and engined that don't run on combustion at all. We can make hydrogen though approximately 15 or more different ways. What you have to understand just because something fits, doesn't mean it happened like that and at any time, evidence could come along to change the entire understanding of what happened. And when you deny that possibility, you have stop doing science and started a religion or something.
Like this?
I don't need to cite anything. If you had been paying attention instead of only caring about people believing that evolution as stated today is fact and will never change, you would have seen where this is happening and the reasons why religions are attempting to muck around the science classes.
This is being done by poorly trained science teachers who like you, need some help.
First of all, science never has disproved Genesis. It can't do that at all. Second, what science did was provide a concept that allows other aspects of theories fit into place. These theories are supported by evidence but are not fact and can change when a better explanation comes along, even if it is a magical man in the clouds waving his hands and the evidence shows it.
repeat after me. Evolution is not fact, evolution is not fact, evolution is just the best explaination we have come up with that seems to fit the evidence we have found. Evolution can also be split into two categories, macro and micro, with the difference being a real speciation. We have never observed speciation unless we butcher the definition of species and add artificial restrictions. Unfortunately, they restrictions do not hold true when generically applied. This is true despite your biased website pushing evolution over anything else or your clear misunderstanding of science.
Science isn't incompatible with religion, it is just one avenue of understanding that may or may not agree with religion. But science doesn't do religion except for people who seem to have made science their religion and believe everything to be more then what it is (hmm.. Like you). And no, I did not ever attempt to discredit scientific facts. I put them in their proper understanding and perspective which you are failing at.
I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it? The article said the posts had to be on Hostile websites. While there are idiots and hostile people on slashdot (me probably being one of them), it is not hostile to religion and wouldn't qualify. But this is a good thing, now you know where your flaws are and can work on them to become a better person.
Obviously you never read the Bible. That's ok, you don't need to. But you are also not qualified to comment on it because of this.
The rules were there with the conceptions of how micro organisms traveled and the rules reflected a lot more then you are giving credit for. Science is the attempt to understand the natural world around us. The rules in the bible said there was a problem, science showed us what the problem was. How you equate that to a dog catching a ball I will never know. But your analogy is way off because the dog doesn't know the ball will come back down, it watches it and that point is even moot because we are talking about micro organisms that won't be seen by the human eye for centuries later.
There are more rules then those that pertain to jews. Rules about women after birth and when she it on her monthly cycle, about leprosy, about a lot of things. Most of those rules are best practices today in handling those conditions.
SO your wanting religion to be science now, but this thread is about religion interfering with science.
I gave an example, you obviously didn't read it or even come close to understanding it because there is more then just washing. Religion set rules to live by that dealt with specific contagious diseases and gave ways to address it that are still best practices today minus the modern medicine.
What you are forgetting is that evidence forms our opinions but does not prove anything. In fact, Science doesn't really prove anything besides the possibilities of something.
Now I never asserted the world was only 6012 years old, I just asserted that you prove it wasn't, only that we think it's older.
Yea, I bet you can't see the ocean for the waves too.
Fuck dude, Did I say anything about that? Go on back and tell me what I said, I think you will be surprised that it isn't what you think I said.
There are no fossils that are proven to be older then 6000 years without making assumptions about them which could be incorrect. Even radio carbon dating which is only accurate to about 26,000 before present relies on assumptions about perfect environment and no contamination. It's possible to say it's likely this is older then a certain age, but it's not a fact that it is. And no, just because we treat our assumed age and a fact in factoring other things, it does not make it a fact.
Proof as in this is a fact. Sure there is all kinds of evidence support the idea but the evidence is not proof- it is just evidence to support an idea.
Such as what? You mean the ancient cultures like the Aztecs who have dinosaurs on their garments and pottery and jewelry despite being thousands of years older then our current understanding of dinosaurs or what they look like. I suppose that is just coincidence. Anyways, we have seen with flash flooding and dam bursting that much of the geological formations like the Grand Cannon, the dead sea, and the badlands can be caused over extremely short periods of time in like days and weeks. That's just one, Fossil collections at some sites are another, sedimentary rings and rock formation in various parts of the world are others.
You should really look into it. It's not exactly going to say the earth is 6000 years old, but it will force you to keep an open mind on the millions being claimed.
Yes, I am attempting to flame you now because you refuse to leave. BTW, you are the one who said your Gandfather was a cowards helping jews, homosexuals, and himself escape.
Here is where you fail miserably. There is nothing indiscriminate about the fucking killing. You do no even know what the word means. I told you to look it up, said that there was nothing indiscriminate going on and asked you to show where there was if you though so. Like every fucking thing else of relevance, you ignored it. and you are ignoring it because your entire cowardly argument fall a fucking part as soon as you start addressing the facts.,
Yea, keep ignoring reality..
Blockquote> SumDumAss, your desires are 100% irrelevant. What matters is what actions you take and what groups and political policies you support! By supporting mass murder you thus become, already are, a mass murderer. By supporting the mass murder of your government you are giving permission for those that they attack to attack you back - basic international law.
Blah Blah Blah. Can you say that after paying fucking attention to the facts? Nope, you can only say that while ignoring everything. Like I said, go fuck your cowardly grandpa or something.
They were written as in any written history of the time. The letters from paul are actually the same letters that are in the bible.
IF by well after the fact, you mean weeks and years later, yes, they were written after the fact. If you mean after the fact as in generations later, well, you couldn't be more wrong. It is true that copies that survive today are centuries old, but their authenticity has been traced back to the times of Jesus and the first century through a scientific process called Paleography.
Not really. Science can suggest alternatives but it cannot prove it. The age of the world is only longer then 6000 years because we want to understand it that way, not because any proof that exists. Now there is evidence that fits into place with out current understanding but then again, there is evidence that can suggest a much shorter time too.
Actually, no, it was intended to be an accurate reflection of the bible. Look into the laws of Moses and some of the early laws in the bible. It specifically talked about treatment for lepers and so on and knowing what we know now, deals with germs and cleanliness. Science didn't really pick this up until the 1850's with the works of Leeuwenhoek and Pasteur.
In fact, Louis Pasteur's work on puerperal fever was mostly outlined in the bible with the treatment of women on the period and just after giving birth (which referred to the period). If you ignore the sacrifices and look into the washing, burning of contaminated cloths and so on, you can find quite a few references to micro-organisms in Leviticus as well as a few other places.
Much of the bible was written by the main participants. Very little is different from older versions and as which is true with the Jewish religion (remember Jesus was a Jew), the bible was studied by the leaders of the community and verbally passed down and when changes were seen, those people were corrected and the stories remained the same.
About the only parts of the bible which could be different would be the new testament. However, it's relatively the same except for a few lacking pieces since the oldest copy we know. It's unlikely that it was changed to further some agenda unless it was the agenda outlined in the bible.
I don't disagree with the breakup of ATT. However, that was not because of providing competition. In the markets they served, they still had explicit control and was the single provider for many years. What the government did there was prevent an abuse and a consequence of that was more competition if not just at first on the long distance side.
As for capitalism providing competition, the theories on that are sort of irrelevant when you consider the structure and role of the government. It may not be a perfect system but as I mentioned our government doesn't have the authority to do much more then stop abuses. We are a reactive society in this situation.