Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact.
I'll see your mathematical fact and raise you a "try again"
Candidate #1 = 60% of the vote
Candidate #2 = 20% of the vote
Candidate #3 = 20% of the vote
And how about having 18 candidates getting 5% of the vote and the 19th guy getting 10% ? You want to have the guy with 10% winning? Didn't something like that happen in Europe somewhere? (sorry, can't remember)
Check the June 2006 issue of "Roundel" (p.31) "The hydrogen car is with us, in all practical terms, today. And as proof of that, before the end of this year, BMW will have a demonstration fleet of hydrogen-fueled 7 Series sedans operational in Europe and the United States. [...] real cars, driving real miles, and delivering BMW performance."
You're making the common mistake that ID proponents always make.
And you're making a nice mistake also by putting words into my post. This isn't the extent of the argument for God. That argument is much bigger and covers more than just the physical sciences (philosophical/ontological). This God of mine is the one who made science and put a nice order to things. This isn't the sun-god chasing the moon-god around the sky on a fiery chariot.
My post is wondering why nobody asks any questions of evolution. Is evolution so sacred that we can't ask questions of it? Can't a decent textbook present some of the problems with evolution and ask the future generation of scientists to help solve them instead of just glossing over it all? "Darwin's theory of evolution (macro-evolution) answers everything (or it eventually will) and we'll even gift-wrap that for you."
There will be always some things they we don't have a good explanation for... yet
And it could certainly not be something outside the 2-dimensional Flatland. That's the talk of madmen. Sure, some puzzles will be solved (and I hope they are because it would sure make things easier), but getting back to my original post, how much shoddy evidence do we have to have in schoolbooks before we start to ask why the editors didn't examine it more closely? Has a generation of scientists been stifled from improving upon evolutionary theory because they don't dare question Darwin?
why can't that same explanation ["it always was"] hold for the universe itself.
That explantion was tried for a while. It didn't hold up once we saw that the universe was expanding. i.e. if it's expanding it must have been smaller -- set the wayback machine for a split second after the big bang. Did it "make science smaller" all of a sudden? And if it didn't exist forever then there must have been "imaginary time" (Hawking, et al.) before that.
Executive Summary: Teach evolution but ask questions about it.
I remember my 8th grade biology text (1986ish) showing some guy's drawings of various animal embryos and how similar they are. Now I find out it was an exaggeration.
And the peppered moths? I come to find out they were dead moths pinned to the trees.
I'd like to know why that was handed down as fact.
Okay, now tell me how blood clotting works and doesn't turn ALL my blood into one big clot. How does something like that evolve? Doesn't the "turn-clotting-off" mechanism have to be there at the same time as "turn-clotting-on"? One without the other is gonna kill me. It's when they both have to be there at the same time that leaves me puzzled as to how it could evolve gradually.
I'm not saying we should have to pick Intelligent Design OVER Evolution. Teach evolution but ask intelligent questions.
Slight problem with posting names of contributors: retribution. Suppose a liberal works at a small company where 100% of the bosses are conservative? and vice versa. Is he or she going to want the company owners to know his or her political standing? Didn't think so. Of course nobody would ever let a political viewpoint affect how they perceive an employee's performance. Paranoia? It sure is.
Umm... you wouldn't even need to read the article to see that it says "umbilical cord blood stem cells." President Bush has no problems with using cord blood stem cells -- no ethical dilemas there at all. In fact this type of thing is already being done right here in the U.S.A. It's already established and is sometimes used instead of bone marrow transplants (depends on how close the match and other factors).
Patriot Act, Schmatriot Act. Give me one specific example of how your life has been negatively impacted. And don't say "oooh, ooh, my civil liberties."
But it sure is fun to complain about ain't it?
However, I do agree with what I think is the point of your post: our representatives (state and federal) spend way too much time on useless things. Can anyone tell me what the Official State Muffin of Minnesota is?
I printed out a RewardZone coupon from Best Buy on the company laser printer (HP LaserJet 4100tn) and instead of a barcode I got a useless black rectangle.
So is my HP printer trying to prevent me from giving any further purchase demographics to Best Buy?
(and yes the cashier still tried to scan the black rectangle).
Sorry, you'll have to point out the contradiction to me. Please use an appropriate literary analysis and the original Hebrew where appropriate.
I don't agree with the Young-Earth-literal-24-hour-interpretation-of-Day creation, but I have even more problems with the something-from-nothing-we-are-here-by-accident evolution.
How about just splitting a state's electors along popular vote lines? In Presidential-2000 election 50% of Minnesota's 10 electors would have gone to Bush. (There are already a few (2?) states who do this).
It requires no changes to the Constitution and ensures that low-population states (Wyoming/Dakotas) don't wind up as a state-sized waste dump for the rest of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact.
I'll see your mathematical fact and raise you a "try again"
Candidate #1 = 60% of the vote
Candidate #2 = 20% of the vote
Candidate #3 = 20% of the vote
And how about having 18 candidates getting 5% of the vote and the 19th guy getting 10% ? You want to have the guy with 10% winning? Didn't something like that happen in Europe somewhere? (sorry, can't remember)
Check the June 2006 issue of "Roundel" (p.31)
"The hydrogen car is with us, in all practical terms, today. And as proof of that, before the end of this year, BMW will have a demonstration fleet of hydrogen-fueled 7 Series sedans operational in Europe and the United States. [...] real cars, driving real miles, and delivering BMW performance."
Sign me up for a test drive.
And you're making a nice mistake also by putting words into my post. This isn't the extent of the argument for God. That argument is much bigger and covers more than just the physical sciences (philosophical/ontological). This God of mine is the one who made science and put a nice order to things. This isn't the sun-god chasing the moon-god around the sky on a fiery chariot.
My post is wondering why nobody asks any questions of evolution. Is evolution so sacred that we can't ask questions of it? Can't a decent textbook present some of the problems with evolution and ask the future generation of scientists to help solve them instead of just glossing over it all? "Darwin's theory of evolution (macro-evolution) answers everything (or it eventually will) and we'll even gift-wrap that for you."
There will be always some things they we don't have a good explanation for... yet
And it could certainly not be something outside the 2-dimensional Flatland. That's the talk of madmen. Sure, some puzzles will be solved (and I hope they are because it would sure make things easier), but getting back to my original post, how much shoddy evidence do we have to have in schoolbooks before we start to ask why the editors didn't examine it more closely? Has a generation of scientists been stifled from improving upon evolutionary theory because they don't dare question Darwin?
why can't that same explanation ["it always was"] hold for the universe itself.
That explantion was tried for a while. It didn't hold up once we saw that the universe was expanding. i.e. if it's expanding it must have been smaller -- set the wayback machine for a split second after the big bang. Did it "make science smaller" all of a sudden? And if it didn't exist forever then there must have been "imaginary time" (Hawking, et al.) before that.
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
I remember my 8th grade biology text (1986ish) showing some guy's drawings of various animal embryos and how similar they are. Now I find out it was an exaggeration.
And the peppered moths? I come to find out they were dead moths pinned to the trees.
I'd like to know why that was handed down as fact.
Okay, now tell me how blood clotting works and doesn't turn ALL my blood into one big clot. How does something like that evolve? Doesn't the "turn-clotting-off" mechanism have to be there at the same time as "turn-clotting-on"? One without the other is gonna kill me. It's when they both have to be there at the same time that leaves me puzzled as to how it could evolve gradually.
I'm not saying we should have to pick Intelligent Design OVER Evolution. Teach evolution but ask intelligent questions.
Slight problem with posting names of contributors: retribution. Suppose a liberal works at a small company where 100% of the bosses are conservative? and vice versa. Is he or she going to want the company owners to know his or her political standing? Didn't think so. Of course nobody would ever let a political viewpoint affect how they perceive an employee's performance. Paranoia? It sure is.
Umm... you wouldn't even need to read the article to see that it says "umbilical cord blood stem cells." President Bush has no problems with using cord blood stem cells -- no ethical dilemas there at all. In fact this type of thing is already being done right here in the U.S.A. It's already established and is sometimes used instead of bone marrow transplants (depends on how close the match and other factors).
Facts are cool.
If the act has produced zero tangible benefits[...]
How about the absence of terrorist attacks on the homeland? I'd say that's one tangible benefit.
Patriot Act, Schmatriot Act. Give me one specific example of how your life has been negatively impacted. And don't say "oooh, ooh, my civil liberties."
But it sure is fun to complain about ain't it?
However, I do agree with what I think is the point of your post: our representatives (state and federal) spend way too much time on useless things. Can anyone tell me what the Official State Muffin of Minnesota is?
And yeah, I'm off-topic too.
I printed out a RewardZone coupon from Best Buy on the company laser printer (HP LaserJet 4100tn) and instead of a barcode I got a useless black rectangle.
So is my HP printer trying to prevent me from giving any further purchase demographics to Best Buy?
(and yes the cashier still tried to scan the black rectangle).
I don't agree with the Young-Earth-literal-24-hour-interpretation-of-Day creation, but I have even more problems with the something-from-nothing-we-are-here-by-accident evolution.
How about just splitting a state's electors along popular vote lines? In Presidential-2000 election 50% of Minnesota's 10 electors would have gone to Bush. (There are already a few (2?) states who do this).
It requires no changes to the Constitution and ensures that low-population states (Wyoming/Dakotas) don't wind up as a state-sized waste dump for the rest of the country.