I see your ideology seeping through. I'd rather let the market hash it out for themselves and see which alternative become more economically viable. Of course alternatives should get research grants and tax breaks but I'm not going to decide off the cuff which will work and most importantly WHEN it will work and WHEN we will cease to need oil anymore.
Actually you are confusing "New Earth" theology with creationism. There are Creationists who believe in an "Old Earth" theology too. Second of all what made the RNA? What purpose did RNA serve without DNA? Why is RNA never replicated by itself without DNA? You have no answers. Just distractions.
Which again is what they said 40 years ago. I'd like to hedge that bet. Hope for the best (usable renewable alternatives to oil for transportation) but plan for the worst. That is if it takes a little longer for alternatives to get to market then we have a backup plan. Plus all that oil will STILL be able to be sold to China.
I actually don't argue that the affect is taken into account by the market of future oil drilling. WHEN the land or sea rights are ACTUALLY sold to the oil companies is when the impact will be made.
No I don't. I was pointing out that this whole discussion shouldn't even involve evolution as evolution and Creationism CAN coexist. It is the origin of life that Creationism is at odds with what is now taught in Science class.
Actually a lot of stolen cars are on the streets at any given time. Car theft is a much larger problem then you think. 1.2 million cars are stolen each year... http://lojack.com/stolen-car-list.html
Wow, just wow. Did you know that first off no plant should be forced to operate at 100% because it makes no sense. A hurricane comes along and takes out all the refining capacity and now you are screwed. Why? Because you didn't have extra capacity at other plants. This is just common sense.
Secondly I've said it a million times so I don't know how you missed my position but I agree that we need to reduce demand through alternatives. What I don't agree with is reducing demand by causing prices to rise. That is totally backwards from an economical perspective and isn't that what this thread is about. Obama is supporting your plan btw to cause Oil prices to rise. This SINGE thing will tank the economy. Why an economist would not see that is beyond me and points to their own irrational bias.
Did you stop to think about WHY we use more energy? Could it be that a country that has one of the largest GDP in the world might need that energy? IN addition I agree that the standard or living in the US is fantastic and way above that of say India or Mexico. You would have us lower that standard of living to use less Oil? Why not concentrate on the alternatives getting to market? Hybrids are already feasible but now pure electric cars or Hydrogen Fuel Cells need to come to market. This paired with alternative energy generation would change the need for oil. But to ask people to stop spending their own money however they damn well please is quite a large statement of your ideology and out of line with just about everyone in the entire world.
You sir are the troll and you miss the point of my main post which is that Evolution has nothing to do with this news story because Creationism deals with the origin of life and matter.
Sorry but when did I mention offshore drilling. We also have reserves in ANWR and in the oil sands of Colorado. Even if all of those took 5 years don't you think it would make a lot of sense to start now?
Right because that's how the mod system works right? If someone posts something factual but that goes against your belief system then you mod them down right?
Actually that one is easy. God didn't create birth defects. Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden and so they live in an imperfect world where there is good and evil and where other beings or people have choices which can lead to good or bad consequences.
Carl Sagan got the two intertwined in many of his videos. I think this guy was suffeciently up on evolutionary theory and yet he hopped from the big bang to evolution with no transition and presented everything as fact not "Scientists believe".
That's not my point. My point is philosophy is where the teleological argument comes from and a myriad of others. But now one man says we should answer Creationists with facts from science and the Scientists hate philosophy SO much that even mention of something that is one degree away from a philosophical principle makes them go coo coo for coco puffs and force the guy to quit.
Or we could allow drilling if all the extra oil gets bought and put in the strategic petroleum reserve. Why not keep the oil even closer to the supply chain?
Oh spun, you silly sud. Nobody said God manifests physically. That is how the difference is made. It is the existence of matter and then the formation of DNA in a cell with replication capabilities and usefulness for the cell that I am wondering about. It is these things that Creationism answers.
A little future supply makes a big difference either because of speculation or because of a really steep demand curve. But in reality the prices fell because of the housing crisis and it's affect on the economy of the future. Whoever becomes President will inherit a down economy. This is why oil prices fell because in down economies less oil is used.
Thanks for composing a lot of sentences that said nothing at all. I can do that too. See I just created three of them.
I never said Evolution claimed anything about the origin of life. My point was that the origin of life is what Creationists are arguing about and Evolutionists on whole reject creationism but not because they believe in Evolution nor because they have a good explanation for the origin of life but because they can't use SCIENCE to TEST CREATIONISM. However to say no facts point to Creationism is in fact a lie. I know I will be flamed by this but prophecy actually provides plenty of backing for Christianity and in addition statistically it makes more sense for things the way they are to have had some help at the origin of life as opposed to just randomly combining like most 9th Grade Biology teachers hold happened.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your ideology seeping through. I'd rather let the market hash it out for themselves and see which alternative become more economically viable. Of course alternatives should get research grants and tax breaks but I'm not going to decide off the cuff which will work and most importantly WHEN it will work and WHEN we will cease to need oil anymore.
Actually you are confusing "New Earth" theology with creationism. There are Creationists who believe in an "Old Earth" theology too. Second of all what made the RNA? What purpose did RNA serve without DNA? Why is RNA never replicated by itself without DNA? You have no answers. Just distractions.
Which again is what they said 40 years ago. I'd like to hedge that bet. Hope for the best (usable renewable alternatives to oil for transportation) but plan for the worst. That is if it takes a little longer for alternatives to get to market then we have a backup plan. Plus all that oil will STILL be able to be sold to China.
I actually don't argue that the affect is taken into account by the market of future oil drilling. WHEN the land or sea rights are ACTUALLY sold to the oil companies is when the impact will be made.
No I don't. I was pointing out that this whole discussion shouldn't even involve evolution as evolution and Creationism CAN coexist. It is the origin of life that Creationism is at odds with what is now taught in Science class.
Prophecy that comes true is fact.
No because they do already use the cameras to track people. It is just a really slow process right now.
Actually the link is good. I've tested it multiple times.
The link is good. PEBKAC.
The video feeds already exist so all this would do is put them in a useful format.
Actually a lot of stolen cars are on the streets at any given time. Car theft is a much larger problem then you think. 1.2 million cars are stolen each year... http://lojack.com/stolen-car-list.html
Wow, just wow. Did you know that first off no plant should be forced to operate at 100% because it makes no sense. A hurricane comes along and takes out all the refining capacity and now you are screwed. Why? Because you didn't have extra capacity at other plants. This is just common sense.
Secondly I've said it a million times so I don't know how you missed my position but I agree that we need to reduce demand through alternatives. What I don't agree with is reducing demand by causing prices to rise. That is totally backwards from an economical perspective and isn't that what this thread is about. Obama is supporting your plan btw to cause Oil prices to rise. This SINGE thing will tank the economy. Why an economist would not see that is beyond me and points to their own irrational bias.
Did you stop to think about WHY we use more energy? Could it be that a country that has one of the largest GDP in the world might need that energy? IN addition I agree that the standard or living in the US is fantastic and way above that of say India or Mexico. You would have us lower that standard of living to use less Oil? Why not concentrate on the alternatives getting to market? Hybrids are already feasible but now pure electric cars or Hydrogen Fuel Cells need to come to market. This paired with alternative energy generation would change the need for oil. But to ask people to stop spending their own money however they damn well please is quite a large statement of your ideology and out of line with just about everyone in the entire world.
You sir are the troll and you miss the point of my main post which is that Evolution has nothing to do with this news story because Creationism deals with the origin of life and matter.
Sorry but when did I mention offshore drilling. We also have reserves in ANWR and in the oil sands of Colorado. Even if all of those took 5 years don't you think it would make a lot of sense to start now?
Right because that's how the mod system works right? If someone posts something factual but that goes against your belief system then you mod them down right?
Actually that one is easy. God didn't create birth defects. Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden and so they live in an imperfect world where there is good and evil and where other beings or people have choices which can lead to good or bad consequences.
Carl Sagan got the two intertwined in many of his videos. I think this guy was suffeciently up on evolutionary theory and yet he hopped from the big bang to evolution with no transition and presented everything as fact not "Scientists believe".
Actually since this was a discussion about Creationism in Science class and Evolution was not mentioned I'm sure the opposite is still true.
That's not my point. My point is philosophy is where the teleological argument comes from and a myriad of others. But now one man says we should answer Creationists with facts from science and the Scientists hate philosophy SO much that even mention of something that is one degree away from a philosophical principle makes them go coo coo for coco puffs and force the guy to quit.
Or we could allow drilling if all the extra oil gets bought and put in the strategic petroleum reserve. Why not keep the oil even closer to the supply chain?
Oh spun, you silly sud. Nobody said God manifests physically. That is how the difference is made. It is the existence of matter and then the formation of DNA in a cell with replication capabilities and usefulness for the cell that I am wondering about. It is these things that Creationism answers.
A little future supply makes a big difference either because of speculation or because of a really steep demand curve. But in reality the prices fell because of the housing crisis and it's affect on the economy of the future. Whoever becomes President will inherit a down economy. This is why oil prices fell because in down economies less oil is used.
And all the system admin on the backend too? And new hires? Do you have 10 a week?
Thanks for composing a lot of sentences that said nothing at all. I can do that too. See I just created three of them.
I never said Evolution claimed anything about the origin of life. My point was that the origin of life is what Creationists are arguing about and Evolutionists on whole reject creationism but not because they believe in Evolution nor because they have a good explanation for the origin of life but because they can't use SCIENCE to TEST CREATIONISM. However to say no facts point to Creationism is in fact a lie. I know I will be flamed by this but prophecy actually provides plenty of backing for Christianity and in addition statistically it makes more sense for things the way they are to have had some help at the origin of life as opposed to just randomly combining like most 9th Grade Biology teachers hold happened.