Once again don't argue the word in English. Go back to the original language of the scripture and then look at it in the context of the language at that time.
First of you are using the English translation to point out a semantics problem which is ridiculous. Go back to the original language. Then stop taking it out of context. Those two things should solve your problem.
Wrong. You can't lump in creationism with Christianity or a specific group of believers within Christianity. First off Christians are broken down into "New Earth" and "Old Earth" Christians. The theological rifts are many and in fact probably number more then the sands of the world's beaches just to give it a number. The point is you are creating a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, pinning up the defenseless strawman and then after dousing him with gasoline you light him on fire and declare victory when in fact your adversary is hiding in the corn fields beside you waiting to strike.
Furthermore Creationism has more against abiogenisis then Evolution. That was my point in my original post. Natural Selection works. It is the assumption that it was the determining factor all the way back to the origin of life that is what Creationists have a problem with.
Also I want to know where DNA got put together in such a fashion that its information was both useful for the cell and able to be replicated and protected at the same time.
mmhmm, that answers all my questions. You should write a science book for 9th grade Biology. Except you didn't offer any information at all and you didn't add any value at all either. I knew all you just spewed already but my point is "How did DNA come to exist in a cell in which the mechanisms to replicate it and protect it already existed?". If you has to answer that question then how would you go about it? "Well amino acids blah blah blah". No. It doesn't work. I'm not asking you what DNA is made of. I'm asking you how it became ordered and in a system the way it is IN EVERY LIVING CREATURE ALIVE TODAY.
Just because your religious friends are thickheaded does not mean you can take that and apply it to a whole class of people and say that for every one of these you get this attribute. People are their own. They make their own determinations. Christianity does not ask that its followers do not ask questions.
When I was young I swallowed evolution as fact. Then I went the other way and rejected it completely. Now I have come back to the middle. I know that the natural selection model works and we can see it in bacteria all the time. I also know that in our lifetime we have never seen one species become another and so I'm more skeptical of that claim. I'm willing to listen to people convince me otherwise. I also have a problem with the idea that life STARTED at a primordial ooze as opposed to having some order already from some kind of interjection either scientific or from God. It's these things I am skeptical about but I am not so thickheaded as to never change my mind about them. Just because your friends are doesn't mean you can apply that universally.
Thanks for bringing up the environmental argument. If there is little oil then there will be little impact. I just wanted to point that out before I rip into the thrust of your argument. Your comparison of a lot of damage for little gain is disingenuous.
Now to the thrust. You argue against mining or drilling for oil here and yet this will not reduce consumption because the oil will just be mined and drilled elsewhere in the world. So in effect the environmentalists argument is not "Save the Planet" but rather "Screw America". The oil will still be drilled out of Saudi Arabia. The environmentalists need to concentrate on the ALTERNATIVES and stop worrying about WHERE the oil is coming from. You don't want to stop the oil; you want to stop it from being needed in the first place. If you can do that then AND ONLY THEN will you reduce the amount of oil that is drilled and mined out of the ground.
Please Please yourself. This had nothing to do with religion. And you are just shooting yourself in the foot. The philosophers used to be in control back in the time or Aristotle and the scientists were ridiculed. Now that scientists are in control they ridicule philosophy. I'm quite tired of the whole thing. Both sides are big babies.
Actually science still can't explain where DNA came from or for that matter science cannot explain matter. The big bang was a theological idea used to give scientists a starting point. That they don't believe in what caused that starting point is moot. I would love if Evolutionists would reconsider their views but for them it is the Holy Grail and a religion. I don't dispute evolution as in "Survival of the fittest" and change over time and adaptations. I reject it as an explanation for the source of all matter, dna, and life. It doesn't tackle those subjects yet you always see those lumped into evolutionary discussions.
So instead of raising supply you think we should keep it constant while demand increases? That spells disaster anyway you look at it. Your own reasoning means we should drill now. Plus people really underestimate how much oil is in the oil sands of Colorado and up in ANWR.
Let me get this straight. You say that drilling MIGHT have an upside but it MIGHT be limited. We also MIGHT HAVE to use our own oil AND it take a long time to get out of the ground once we start. SO in conclusion you say we should not drill at all? It seems to me your own argument means we should drill as soon as possible.
People said that 40 years ago too. Look where that strategy got us. We need to do "all of the above" and drill plus get greener. When oil is not economically viable the oil companies will switch to mainly alternatives instead of just tasting them now like they are.
Well the companies I worked for were sufficiently small and didn't hold onto the loans. Both went bankrupt though. Now I work for a company doing Loan Mods and Debt Settlement. Funny how it all goes around.
You didn't ask so I didn't tell you yet but what comes next is an "All of the Above" energy policy. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear (Yes nuclear dammit), and wave power. All of these would be pursued and promoted through research grants, easing of restrictions, oversight and review, and tax incentives. Battery technology would finally catch up and we will be Oil free (for transportation at least).
Note that this is the plan the Democrats are pushing minus the drilling for oil now. Republicans (the good ones) are pushing for this plus oil drilling.
If the oil is not profitable it will not be extracted. I'm not JUST talking about offshore drilling either by the way. I'm talking about Oil Sands in Colorado and vast oil reserves in ANWR. The point is for government to not stand in the way of the market and supply getting to that market.
No speculation and looking forward are two different things. The first is wildly inaccurate. The later is based on facts. The fact is supply and demand dictates lower prices when supply rises. Looking forward to more supply will force the market to have to lower prices now because the supply coming online is an inevitability. When this will happen is WHEN congress passes an energy bill which promises to allow drilling domestically.
Who is "you guys"? How to you get off lumping me in with all of Republicans AND all CEOs of ALL companies? That is sort of ridiculous is it not?
I actually worked for a mortgage company doing IT during and before the collapse. Myself and my brother were both outspoken critics of the risky "liar loans" also known as stated income verified assets (SIVA) loans. These loans made it easy for sales to make their numbers but they were not worth the paper they were written on.
Also, both parties ignored the mortgage meltdown crisis until it happened and neither took action to reform the regulations until after it was too late.
Yes, I thought the same as you. But then I realized that the Democrats had a point and it DOES take a long time to get that oil out of the ground. So it would be better to get it out now and then raise by ten fold the amount of oil placed in the strategic petroleum reserve. THAT would make sense from a national defense standpoint.
In addition REAL alternatives to using oil for transportation SHOULD exist by the time anything happens to the world oil supply. Oh, and it only costs $30 a barrel to get it out of the ground. Not $100.
In theory the alternatives will be viable. However like I said before the drop in prices will be immediate. Plus even if the alternatives are viable they won't replace all oil use. Oil is used for plastics, heating, medical supplies and a myriad of other things too.
Right. And to the environmentalists I point out that if they prevent oil from being drilled offshore here it will just be drilled offshore of some other country so the whole thing is pointless. It just makes the United States suffer.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Iraq's oil exporting capacity is just now exceeding pre-war levels. It was way below that for a long time.
Once again don't argue the word in English. Go back to the original language of the scripture and then look at it in the context of the language at that time.
First of you are using the English translation to point out a semantics problem which is ridiculous. Go back to the original language. Then stop taking it out of context. Those two things should solve your problem.
Wrong. You can't lump in creationism with Christianity or a specific group of believers within Christianity. First off Christians are broken down into "New Earth" and "Old Earth" Christians. The theological rifts are many and in fact probably number more then the sands of the world's beaches just to give it a number. The point is you are creating a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, pinning up the defenseless strawman and then after dousing him with gasoline you light him on fire and declare victory when in fact your adversary is hiding in the corn fields beside you waiting to strike.
Furthermore Creationism has more against abiogenisis then Evolution. That was my point in my original post. Natural Selection works. It is the assumption that it was the determining factor all the way back to the origin of life that is what Creationists have a problem with.
Also I want to know where DNA got put together in such a fashion that its information was both useful for the cell and able to be replicated and protected at the same time.
mmhmm, that answers all my questions. You should write a science book for 9th grade Biology. Except you didn't offer any information at all and you didn't add any value at all either. I knew all you just spewed already but my point is "How did DNA come to exist in a cell in which the mechanisms to replicate it and protect it already existed?". If you has to answer that question then how would you go about it? "Well amino acids blah blah blah". No. It doesn't work. I'm not asking you what DNA is made of. I'm asking you how it became ordered and in a system the way it is IN EVERY LIVING CREATURE ALIVE TODAY.
That is sufficiently nebulous to mean quite anything at all.
Just because your religious friends are thickheaded does not mean you can take that and apply it to a whole class of people and say that for every one of these you get this attribute. People are their own. They make their own determinations. Christianity does not ask that its followers do not ask questions.
When I was young I swallowed evolution as fact. Then I went the other way and rejected it completely. Now I have come back to the middle. I know that the natural selection model works and we can see it in bacteria all the time. I also know that in our lifetime we have never seen one species become another and so I'm more skeptical of that claim. I'm willing to listen to people convince me otherwise. I also have a problem with the idea that life STARTED at a primordial ooze as opposed to having some order already from some kind of interjection either scientific or from God. It's these things I am skeptical about but I am not so thickheaded as to never change my mind about them. Just because your friends are doesn't mean you can apply that universally.
Thanks for bringing up the environmental argument. If there is little oil then there will be little impact. I just wanted to point that out before I rip into the thrust of your argument. Your comparison of a lot of damage for little gain is disingenuous.
Now to the thrust. You argue against mining or drilling for oil here and yet this will not reduce consumption because the oil will just be mined and drilled elsewhere in the world. So in effect the environmentalists argument is not "Save the Planet" but rather "Screw America". The oil will still be drilled out of Saudi Arabia. The environmentalists need to concentrate on the ALTERNATIVES and stop worrying about WHERE the oil is coming from. You don't want to stop the oil; you want to stop it from being needed in the first place. If you can do that then AND ONLY THEN will you reduce the amount of oil that is drilled and mined out of the ground.
Please Please yourself. This had nothing to do with religion. And you are just shooting yourself in the foot. The philosophers used to be in control back in the time or Aristotle and the scientists were ridiculed. Now that scientists are in control they ridicule philosophy. I'm quite tired of the whole thing. Both sides are big babies.
Actually science still can't explain where DNA came from or for that matter science cannot explain matter. The big bang was a theological idea used to give scientists a starting point. That they don't believe in what caused that starting point is moot. I would love if Evolutionists would reconsider their views but for them it is the Holy Grail and a religion. I don't dispute evolution as in "Survival of the fittest" and change over time and adaptations. I reject it as an explanation for the source of all matter, dna, and life. It doesn't tackle those subjects yet you always see those lumped into evolutionary discussions.
So instead of raising supply you think we should keep it constant while demand increases? That spells disaster anyway you look at it. Your own reasoning means we should drill now. Plus people really underestimate how much oil is in the oil sands of Colorado and up in ANWR.
Let me get this straight. You say that drilling MIGHT have an upside but it MIGHT be limited. We also MIGHT HAVE to use our own oil AND it take a long time to get out of the ground once we start. SO in conclusion you say we should not drill at all? It seems to me your own argument means we should drill as soon as possible.
People said that 40 years ago too. Look where that strategy got us. We need to do "all of the above" and drill plus get greener. When oil is not economically viable the oil companies will switch to mainly alternatives instead of just tasting them now like they are.
Well the companies I worked for were sufficiently small and didn't hold onto the loans. Both went bankrupt though. Now I work for a company doing Loan Mods and Debt Settlement. Funny how it all goes around.
You didn't ask so I didn't tell you yet but what comes next is an "All of the Above" energy policy. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear (Yes nuclear dammit), and wave power. All of these would be pursued and promoted through research grants, easing of restrictions, oversight and review, and tax incentives. Battery technology would finally catch up and we will be Oil free (for transportation at least).
Note that this is the plan the Democrats are pushing minus the drilling for oil now. Republicans (the good ones) are pushing for this plus oil drilling.
If the oil is not profitable it will not be extracted. I'm not JUST talking about offshore drilling either by the way. I'm talking about Oil Sands in Colorado and vast oil reserves in ANWR. The point is for government to not stand in the way of the market and supply getting to that market.
No speculation and looking forward are two different things. The first is wildly inaccurate. The later is based on facts. The fact is supply and demand dictates lower prices when supply rises. Looking forward to more supply will force the market to have to lower prices now because the supply coming online is an inevitability. When this will happen is WHEN congress passes an energy bill which promises to allow drilling domestically.
Who is "you guys"? How to you get off lumping me in with all of Republicans AND all CEOs of ALL companies? That is sort of ridiculous is it not?
I actually worked for a mortgage company doing IT during and before the collapse. Myself and my brother were both outspoken critics of the risky "liar loans" also known as stated income verified assets (SIVA) loans. These loans made it easy for sales to make their numbers but they were not worth the paper they were written on.
Also, both parties ignored the mortgage meltdown crisis until it happened and neither took action to reform the regulations until after it was too late.
If you ask silly rhetorical questions that make people assume the only answer is yes then that's the kind of argument in refutation that you deserve.
Buahahahah. You made a serious mistake. Yes the market is manipulated but NOT by US citizens. That is why you cannot prosecute them. Duh!
The point is the price will drop and stay down because the market will KNOW that oil supply is rising.
Yes, I thought the same as you. But then I realized that the Democrats had a point and it DOES take a long time to get that oil out of the ground. So it would be better to get it out now and then raise by ten fold the amount of oil placed in the strategic petroleum reserve. THAT would make sense from a national defense standpoint.
In addition REAL alternatives to using oil for transportation SHOULD exist by the time anything happens to the world oil supply. Oh, and it only costs $30 a barrel to get it out of the ground. Not $100.
In theory the alternatives will be viable. However like I said before the drop in prices will be immediate. Plus even if the alternatives are viable they won't replace all oil use. Oil is used for plastics, heating, medical supplies and a myriad of other things too.
Right. And to the environmentalists I point out that if they prevent oil from being drilled offshore here it will just be drilled offshore of some other country so the whole thing is pointless. It just makes the United States suffer.