Hemp seed has almost no appreciable THC content and is more nutrient dense than soybeans. True, but the redeeming factor of soy is that it provides complete protein.
Anyone care to explain how this post is "troll"? Or did a moderator not like what I was saying and not smart enough to come up with a legitimate counter?
Muslim World... Unless you plan on exterminating them all? Anyone have a problem with this? Yes. If (and that's a highly unlikely if,) this is 'managed to be done', what's to stop those doing the ordering from targetting the next group for elimination? And who is that group going to be? Catholics? Anglicans? Any so-called Christian sect that doesn't speak in tongues, handle snakes, consider Evolution and science to be a tool of the devil and that all knowledge outside of one book needs to be suppressed for 'everyone's own good'? I agree, only because not all Muslims are evil head-hunters. The vast majority of them are peaceful, kind people who are simply trying to live their lives and provide the best for their families.
However, comparing Christians with Muslims is not a fair comparison at all. I don't see the Pope or any other Catholic calling for the genocide of people of other religions. I don't read about Christian fathers killing their daughters because they wear makeup or date outside of the religion. I don't see Anglicans hijacking planes full of unarmed civilians and flying them into buildings filled with more unarmed civilians. These activities are pretty much owned Muslim based groups today.
The western world is not at war with Islam, but parts of Islam is at war with the west.
Here in the US you have groups claiming to be Christian who for decades would burn crosses to terrorize an entire section of the population... and perform all sorts of murders and other crimes against those segments of population for the express purpose of causing fear. People who burned crosses in yards did not do so in an attempt to convert them to Christianity. It was a lower case T, for "Time to Leave" (Southpark joke). Seriously now, it was intimidation to get minorities, usually blacks to leave town or stop making trouble. It was NOT a religious statement. So trying to equate a burning cross with a crucifix is not a correct comparison.
More recently, you have people claiming to be Christian blowing up abortion clinics because they do not agree with the idea. Attacks on abortion clinics and doctors was decried by all Christians with the exception of those doing the crime. As a result, there have not been abortion clinic attacks in over 10 years. Even then, those attacks were targeted. Who was the target of 9-11? Have you seen the mothers of abortion clinic bombers proudly displaying their sons pictures and claiming them to be martyrs? Did these mothers receive large payments from religions leaders around the world?
If you ask me, No religion is really free from having people claiming to follow it doing really stupid things. Agreed. But the stupidest thing I've seen Christians do recently is protest soldier's funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags". Even those protests were blocked by other Christians and patriots. Of course, these in no way compare to the "Death to the infidels" protests I've seen overseas. I also don't see these wackos strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up gay night clubs! So while it is true that no religion is free from a few nut jobs, Christian nutjobs don't kill 3000 people at a time and film their beheadings for YouTube!
So again, comparing Christianity, or any other world religion to Islam is not valid. That level of hatred and violence is unique to Islam (in the past 500 years, anyway).
Muslim World... Unless you plan on exterminating them all? Anyone have a problem with this? Yes. If (and that's a highly unlikely if,) this is 'managed to be done', what's to stop those doing the ordering from targetting the next group for elimination? And who is that group going to be? Catholics? Anglicans? Any so-called Christian sect that doesn't speak in tongues, handle snakes, consider Evolution and science to be a tool of the devil and that all knowledge outside of one book needs to be suppressed for 'everyone's own good'? I agree, only because not all Muslims are evil head-hunters. The vast majority of them are peaceful, kind people who are simply trying to live their lives and provide the best for their families.
However, comparing Christians with Muslims is not a fair comparison at all. I don't see the Pope or any other Catholic calling for the genocide of people of other religions. I don't read about Christian fathers killing their daughters because they wear makeup or date outside of the religion. I don't see Anglicans hijacking planes full of unarmed civilians and flying them into buildings filled with more unarmed civilians. These activities are pretty much owned Muslim based groups today.
The western world is not at war with Islam, but parts of Islam is at war with the west.
It's not about terrorism. It's about control. How is standardizing ID's across all 50 states granting anyone control? Will my license emit brain control waves that turn me into a good little patriot?
Fact is that all 50 states require driver's licenses. All 50 states create their own standards for those licenses. These licenses allow you board planes in any airport in all 50 states. It may be easier for you to get a license in your state than in mine. That means it is easier for you board a plane that it is for me. Is that fair? If anything, this ensures equal treatment for all citizens, regardless from what state they come from!
It's not about control! Get real. The feds will have no more control over me when I have to carry a state-issued ID that meets Real ID standards than they do now that I have to carry a state issued ID that only meets the vast majority of those standards. Take your foil hat off, please.
Even if you buy into that load of crap that you just spewed, how does imposing new restrictions on Americans and granting the Government sweeping new powers help towards that goal? How do ID standards... I'm sorry, Driver's License standards granting the federal government any power at all? So your license has stuff in common with people from all 50 states. So? Unless I'm forced to carry it in my mouth, I don't see how this can limit free speech or any of the other rights as spelled in the Bill of Rights.
The title states:
National ID Cards Mandated in the US, If You're Under 50 But the summary states:
US Homeland Security Department has mandated Real ID for drivers licenses. While a driver's license is an ID, an ID is not necessarily a driver's license. Will they mandate Real ID for passports? Passports are ID. Will they mandate it for library cards? Those can also act as ID.
Nowhere does this plan call for citizens to carry ID, nor does it affect anything other than driver's licenses.
Is there a theoretical limit to the size of a black hole? While I can't give you numbers since I'm going from memory, but there used to be a theoretical limit to black hole size. This was before "Super Massive Black Holes" were discovered in the center of every galaxy. Super Massive Black Holes are much more massive than the previous theoretical limit and were thought to be impossible so many astronomers were claiming that such a thing was couldn't exist while others were saying, "Oh yeah? Then why don't you put down the chalk, professor, and come down to my observatory and tell me what that big-ass black gravity thing is in the middle of our galaxy!" (Of course, they couldn't really see it, but you get the point)
I think astronomers are reluctant to guess at a size limit now as they don't want another discovery to make them look like asses.
Just playing devils advocate here but what kind of idiot would buy a $500 laptop and then buy Vista Premium @ $400? My father-in-law just bought my wife one of those cheap laptops. 1.6ghz 512mb with Vista Home Basic for right around $600 (came with a bag and a mouse). I told her to return it of course (I already have 2 PC's and a laptop*). My point is you can't compare Vista Ultimate to your setup. Maybe if you installed Ubuntu 7.10 and turned Compiz up to full settings and enabled a few other visual effects you could. Compiz functions well with the basics (window minimize, desktop cube and wobbly windows), provided the correct video drivers are installed. Any of the more advanced features are still very much beta.
As for Vista on a $499 PC... I was talking about it coming pre-installed. If not Premium (which I have seen offered on some uber-cheap notebooks since black Friday), then certainly Basic. Still, XUbuntu, or even regular Ubuntu, Fedora or whatever will run rings around it at the lower end of hardware that is purchased on new PC's today.
*for the record the laptop is running Ubuntu Feisty, my 3.0ghz is dual booting ubuntu 7.10 and XP home, and my 2.4ghz is running xp professional. Compiz will not function properly with most animations and there is still no support for my sound card after 2 years. Joe Consumer would have brought back the linux machine and bought a more expensive windows machine, but I'm a glutton for punishment. My E6300 Core2 Duo is running Gutsy with all the Compiz bells and whistles just fine. My Opteron 175 is running LinuxMint the same way (both with nVidia cards). I haven't had any issues with LinuxMint, but it came with Compiz ready to go. I started Ubuntu with Feisty which came out before Compiz reached its current level of maturity. I've been playing with Compiz since it was called XGL... then Beryl, now Compiz, so I've had some issues with it. Evidently I'm a glutton for punishment as well. But then again, that's my choice. Compiz runs fine with the options that come "out of the box" better than Vista on the same hardware.
In a well-designed system, ballot box stuffing would be hard. First, the ballot box stuffer needs to get their hands on the box and a bunch of valid ballots - if the process is properly designed, both will be closely watched. Secondly, there should be a seperate count (at the door) of the number of people who voted. If there are more ballots than people who voted, it's obvious that something's wrong. Right! But how do you know which ballots are valid? With electronic voting with a paper backup, the ballot box would have to be stuffed and the machines would have to be hacked. Otherwise, one or the other would have the same number of votes as voters who entered the booth. The one that matches is the one that counts. With either pure electric or pure paper, all the votes in the polling station would have to be thrown out or counted along with the fraud votes. Neither is acceptable.
In practice, the easiest traditional ways of ballot stuffing still work with electronic voting. You can register fake voters, cast votes on the behalf of other people (including dead people), that sort of thing. They attack the determination of whether someone is allowed to cast a vote, not the voting system itself. Any time I hear of someone opposing an ID to vote requirement, this is exactly what I think they are up to. Require an ID to vote, and these people would not only need to register as someone else, but they would also need and ID to vote as them. Granted, it's an extra step that could be overcome, but it is an extra step. This type of fraud is the same with electronic voting as it is with paper ballots, so it's really neither here nor there with this discussion.
Actual, literal, ballot-box stuffing is easier with electronic voting - an attacker can subtract votes easily without needing access to the elections between voting and vote-counting, simply by pre-compromising the system. We have defences against this for traditional ballots, but electronic voting has no way of testing this sort of compromise. (A major issue is the sophistication of attacks that are possible - being simple is an advantage in this case.) Again, this is why you have both. If votes have been subtracted, the door count won't match the electrical vote count. Same as if votes have been added. With a paper backup, votes can only be added. Put a number on the paper ballots that ID it with an electric vote, and you can throw out the invalid paper ballots in the event of stuffing. In the event of electrical voting fraud, there will be more paper ballots then electrical ones, but the the serial numbers on each ballot matching it to an electric vote would still allow for an accurate count (and possibly aid in an investigation).
Forgive me for following you offtopic, but there are a few factual errors and personal disagreements in your post.
and maybe Clinton. I've always found her a bit cool and a bit forced. Then I watched Hillary Clinton being interviewed on ABC. She was not likeable and cuddly. But she came across as clever, as capable, and as experienced... for lack of a better word, she just had more cojones than anyone else. She showed she was president material, and that's why I decided to support her. Is this the interview where she cried? I don't want a president who cries when he/she doesn't get his/her way. Campaigning is tough, being president is much tougher. Also, you think Bush is bad concerning privacy? Wasn't it the Clintons who requested and "lost" a bunch of FBI files on political opponents? Of course, these files turned up on top of a table in the WH, in plain site after being "lost" for several months. "There these are! They've been here on this table in this hallway the entire time!" Don't even get me started on Sandy Burgler... Er... Berger. You remember, that Clinton National Security adviser who stole and shredded 9-11 related top secret documents by stuffing them into his pants and socks right before the 9-11 commission got them? And, of course, lets not forget about all the stolen WH silverware.
But we're facing serious problems. Iraq's security has improved, but the civil war could return at any moment, because there's no political progress. "Exit" is not a strategy to fix any of that. That's really about the only strategy I've heard from any of the candidates on both sides.
Afghanistan is still a mess. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, not a US one. While it is our problem, it's not ours alone. Also, I haven't heard a whole lot from the left except for "Exit".
The budget deficit is larger than ever, and the economy is looking bad. First, the US government is pulling in the largest receipts in history. This means that it is making MORE money than ever. Unfortunately, spending has grown faster than the receipts. Next, the economy is looking better than ever, in nearly every single sector. Unemployment, interest rates and inflation are all low while the stock market, GDP and payroll are all up. The economy has been booming since '02.
He's got hope, but hope is not going to placate the Republicans when he raises taxes, which he will have to do in order to balance the budget. Again, raising taxes will only slow the economy, which will cause the government to receive less money. Yes, that's right! Raising taxes will LOWER the amount of money the government takes in. Just like how LOWERING taxes INCREASED the amount of money the government takes in. I know it's hard for many to grasp, but it's a tested and true economic principle. Google or Wiki Laffer Curve for an explanation as to how it all works. The problem is spending. While the current administration as congress have not exactly been frugal, the problem is not with the amount of money the gov't brings in, but how much it spends. The gov't is making more money than ever. It doesn't need MORE.
I'll explain: Joe Consumer buys a system for $200. He realizes that he can't run his Windows apps easily/at all, that it's "different" and "difficult" from what he knows (Microsoft, again), and it's kind of slow. He'll associate Linux with incompatibility, difficulties, and piss poor performance. And he may tell his friends. Seeing as I have XUbuntu running at slightly better than acceptable speeds on a 400Mhz P2 with 256MB RAM, I'd say that performance won't be much of a problem on this system with its 1.5Ghz processor and 512MB RAM. Especially once you compare it to that $499 (software not included) PC trying to run Vista Premium on similar hardware.
Absolutely. I don't want to oversimplify things, but the solution is right in the summary. Do like every other country does and hand-count the votes. Americans are clearly getting screwed over and over by those voting machines. They have to go.
Yeah, because stuffing a ballot box is SO much harder than hacking into several voting machines without leaving any tracks.
How 'bout we just attach a receipt printer to these things to print paper ballots at the same time. That way, we have the speed and convenience of automated voting AND a paper trail if something starts to stink.
Because Bush and his administration have proven time and again that they are only out for themselves, and don't give a shit about the American people or even the American environment, let alone the world as a whole. There will be some self serving reason this has been done, whether to save money so it can be siphoned off elsewhere, or perhaps to increase bandwidth usage as people download instead (im sure bush has ties to isps/telcos, but doesn't stand to benefit from the government printing office having more work to do), or maybe to increase sales of printer ink/toner since most people will just print this themselves, using far less efficient devices than a large printing press would. Or it could be just an attempt at getting some cheap positive PR.
The motivation behind it certainly won't have been helping the environment, that's merely a side effect of whatever the true motive is.
You just proved my point. Bush can do no right and whoever your guy is can do no wrong. If Bush were to cure cancer, you'd say it's because he must own stock in Big Pharm. If Bush were to outlaw oil, you'd say it's because he owns stock in Big Corn (even though he's actually an oil man... don't let facts get in the way of your blinding hatred and partisanship!).
See my point? If Bush does something bad, it's because he's an evil asshole. But if Bush does something good, it must be because there are ulterior motives, because Bush is an evil asshole. Facts don't matter and nothing in the world will change your mind because it is closed tighter than a frog's ass!
Your blind and unwavering hatred regardless of the facts rivals that of any Nazi. Just because someone has some differing views does not mean that they are wrong 100% of the time and it certainly doesn't make them your mortal enemy.
So they save a million? Wow, know how else to save money? STOP WAGING WAR YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!
Sure. They could also stop paving roads, giving research grants, funding the UN, giving foreign aid to starving nations, giving billions to combat AIDS in countries that are dying because of the disease, researching wine grape genetics, building tunnels through cities or any of the other projects that the founders had no intention of the Federal government getting involved in.
At least war is a granted power in the Constitution.
"The only way the White House is going to get green with the current president is if they call the painters with lots of green paint."
But knowing this administration, the paint would no doubt be lead-based...
So let me get this straight:
The White House, under President Bush, does something that just about everyone considers green, savings hundreds of trees, and is even a bit geeky, and the only thing you people can do is bash him?!? I have never seen a group of people who were more close minded and blinded by their own biased to the point of bigotry outside of Air Amerika.
And 10 million years from now, the Europan flibbity-wumpus people will argue with eachother over whether life arose there spontaneously, or was "seeded" from space.
I'm sorry, I've completely lost where in any of this religious faith actually counts for anything at all. I like my metaphysics with a sprig of logic; what business does faith have in an argument?
In an argument about the difference between science and religion.
In a science argument, religion has about as much relevance and philosophy, none. In a discussion about religion and science (like this one), religion has exactly 50% relevance, with science taking up the other 50%.
Since you have no grasp of religion, think of it as philosophy. Except, think of it as a philosophy that means more than life itself to a vast majority of the world's population. When seeking answers to quantum entanglement, are you going to refer to DesCartes? I hope not. When contemplating the meaning of life, are you going to refer to , Hawking or Einstein? Maybe you should ask Schrödinger and his cat. Again, I hope not. Some questions science can not answer. Same for religion and philosophy.
You think religion counts as an explanation? Seriously? Faith is an explanation now? Screw that.
OK, let's try this one more time. Try to keep up this time.
Religion does not need an explanation. Religion is not an explanation. Religion is based on faith, not logic. It does not require evidence or explanation. It's just believed. That is what faith is. Religion does not care about how things happen. It is completely irrelevant to faith.
Is it science? No. Is it a substitution for science? For some yes. Others like me, no. While there may be some overlap, neither can prove the other. Fortunately, neither relies on the other.
You might want to google 'block universe' and stop referring to the bible everytime you're in danger of having to think logically.
Uh, I didn't. I said science uses relativity and quantum mechanics to try to explain the beginning of the Universe. Religion uses the Bible, Torah, Koran or whatever. I was explaining that science and religion ask different questions and therefor have different answers and methodology. Science is based on empirical evidence from observation, experimentation, mathematics and theory. Religion is based on faith. They are apples and oranges. You shouldn't point fingers every time you're in danger of facing a different point of view.
Besides, we are talking about science and religion. Block Universe is a philosophical argument. Apples, oranges, and grapes.
I said:
So it was a Catholic Priest that came up with the "Big Bang Theory". Don't say that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Scientists ask how. Religion asks why. You said:
No, the religious ask, but religion tells. And it tells self-serving lies. Are you saying that the big bang theory is a self serving religious lie? And you think religious people ignorant? I think you've crossed ignorance and went straight to bigotry.
Slashdot Mirror
However, comparing Christians with Muslims is not a fair comparison at all. I don't see the Pope or any other Catholic calling for the genocide of people of other religions. I don't read about Christian fathers killing their daughters because they wear makeup or date outside of the religion. I don't see Anglicans hijacking planes full of unarmed civilians and flying them into buildings filled with more unarmed civilians. These activities are pretty much owned Muslim based groups today.
The western world is not at war with Islam, but parts of Islam is at war with the west.
Good links. I was too lazy to search.
So again, comparing Christianity, or any other world religion to Islam is not valid. That level of hatred and violence is unique to Islam (in the past 500 years, anyway).
However, comparing Christians with Muslims is not a fair comparison at all. I don't see the Pope or any other Catholic calling for the genocide of people of other religions. I don't read about Christian fathers killing their daughters because they wear makeup or date outside of the religion. I don't see Anglicans hijacking planes full of unarmed civilians and flying them into buildings filled with more unarmed civilians. These activities are pretty much owned Muslim based groups today.
The western world is not at war with Islam, but parts of Islam is at war with the west.
Fact is that all 50 states require driver's licenses. All 50 states create their own standards for those licenses. These licenses allow you board planes in any airport in all 50 states. It may be easier for you to get a license in your state than in mine. That means it is easier for you board a plane that it is for me. Is that fair? If anything, this ensures equal treatment for all citizens, regardless from what state they come from!
It's not about control! Get real. The feds will have no more control over me when I have to carry a state-issued ID that meets Real ID standards than they do now that I have to carry a state issued ID that only meets the vast majority of those standards. Take your foil hat off, please.
Nowhere does this plan call for citizens to carry ID, nor does it affect anything other than driver's licenses.
Probably emigrated to NZ by that time, if I can squeeze out before the gate comes down.
My poor, poor children... Can you board a plane in NZ without ID?
I think astronomers are reluctant to guess at a size limit now as they don't want another discovery to make them look like asses.
As for Vista on a $499 PC... I was talking about it coming pre-installed. If not Premium (which I have seen offered on some uber-cheap notebooks since black Friday), then certainly Basic. Still, XUbuntu, or even regular Ubuntu, Fedora or whatever will run rings around it at the lower end of hardware that is purchased on new PC's today. *for the record the laptop is running Ubuntu Feisty, my 3.0ghz is dual booting ubuntu 7.10 and XP home, and my 2.4ghz is running xp professional. Compiz will not function properly with most animations and there is still no support for my sound card after 2 years. Joe Consumer would have brought back the linux machine and bought a more expensive windows machine, but I'm a glutton for punishment. My E6300 Core2 Duo is running Gutsy with all the Compiz bells and whistles just fine. My Opteron 175 is running LinuxMint the same way (both with nVidia cards). I haven't had any issues with LinuxMint, but it came with Compiz ready to go. I started Ubuntu with Feisty which came out before Compiz reached its current level of maturity. I've been playing with Compiz since it was called XGL... then Beryl, now Compiz, so I've had some issues with it. Evidently I'm a glutton for punishment as well. But then again, that's my choice. Compiz runs fine with the options that come "out of the box" better than Vista on the same hardware.
Also, you think Bush is bad concerning privacy? Wasn't it the Clintons who requested and "lost" a bunch of FBI files on political opponents? Of course, these files turned up on top of a table in the WH, in plain site after being "lost" for several months. "There these are! They've been here on this table in this hallway the entire time!"
Don't even get me started on Sandy Burgler... Er... Berger. You remember, that Clinton National Security adviser who stole and shredded 9-11 related top secret documents by stuffing them into his pants and socks right before the 9-11 commission got them?
And, of course, lets not forget about all the stolen WH silverware. But we're facing serious problems. Iraq's security has improved, but the civil war could return at any moment, because there's no political progress. "Exit" is not a strategy to fix any of that. That's really about the only strategy I've heard from any of the candidates on both sides. Afghanistan is still a mess. Afghanistan is a NATO operation, not a US one. While it is our problem, it's not ours alone. Also, I haven't heard a whole lot from the left except for "Exit". The budget deficit is larger than ever, and the economy is looking bad. First, the US government is pulling in the largest receipts in history. This means that it is making MORE money than ever. Unfortunately, spending has grown faster than the receipts. Next, the economy is looking better than ever, in nearly every single sector. Unemployment, interest rates and inflation are all low while the stock market, GDP and payroll are all up. The economy has been booming since '02. He's got hope, but hope is not going to placate the Republicans when he raises taxes, which he will have to do in order to balance the budget. Again, raising taxes will only slow the economy, which will cause the government to receive less money. Yes, that's right! Raising taxes will LOWER the amount of money the government takes in. Just like how LOWERING taxes INCREASED the amount of money the government takes in. I know it's hard for many to grasp, but it's a tested and true economic principle. Google or Wiki Laffer Curve for an explanation as to how it all works. The problem is spending. While the current administration as congress have not exactly been frugal, the problem is not with the amount of money the gov't brings in, but how much it spends. The gov't is making more money than ever. It doesn't need MORE.
The WSJ has a pretty good write up on it all HERE
That's all I have for now.
Absolutely. I don't want to oversimplify things, but the solution is right in the summary. Do like every other country does and hand-count the votes. Americans are clearly getting screwed over and over by those voting machines. They have to go.
Yeah, because stuffing a ballot box is SO much harder than hacking into several voting machines without leaving any tracks.
How 'bout we just attach a receipt printer to these things to print paper ballots at the same time. That way, we have the speed and convenience of automated voting AND a paper trail if something starts to stink.
Because Bush and his administration have proven time and again that they are only out for themselves, and don't give a shit about the American people or even the American environment, let alone the world as a whole.
There will be some self serving reason this has been done, whether to save money so it can be siphoned off elsewhere, or perhaps to increase bandwidth usage as people download instead (im sure bush has ties to isps/telcos, but doesn't stand to benefit from the government printing office having more work to do), or maybe to increase sales of printer ink/toner since most people will just print this themselves, using far less efficient devices than a large printing press would. Or it could be just an attempt at getting some cheap positive PR.
The motivation behind it certainly won't have been helping the environment, that's merely a side effect of whatever the true motive is.
You just proved my point. Bush can do no right and whoever your guy is can do no wrong. If Bush were to cure cancer, you'd say it's because he must own stock in Big Pharm. If Bush were to outlaw oil, you'd say it's because he owns stock in Big Corn (even though he's actually an oil man... don't let facts get in the way of your blinding hatred and partisanship!).
See my point? If Bush does something bad, it's because he's an evil asshole. But if Bush does something good, it must be because there are ulterior motives, because Bush is an evil asshole. Facts don't matter and nothing in the world will change your mind because it is closed tighter than a frog's ass!
Your blind and unwavering hatred regardless of the facts rivals that of any Nazi. Just because someone has some differing views does not mean that they are wrong 100% of the time and it certainly doesn't make them your mortal enemy.
Would any one in the western world even think of buying this car? Even for driving in the cities/small towns?
I would if I never had to enter a freeway.
Unfortunately, that's not the case.
So they save a million? Wow, know how else to save money? STOP WAGING WAR YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!
Sure. They could also stop paving roads, giving research grants, funding the UN, giving foreign aid to starving nations, giving billions to combat AIDS in countries that are dying because of the disease, researching wine grape genetics, building tunnels through cities or any of the other projects that the founders had no intention of the Federal government getting involved in.
At least war is a granted power in the Constitution.
"The only way the White House is going to get green with the current president is if they call the painters with lots of green paint."
But knowing this administration, the paint would no doubt be lead-based...
So let me get this straight:
The White House, under President Bush, does something that just about everyone considers green, savings hundreds of trees, and is even a bit geeky, and the only thing you people can do is bash him?!? I have never seen a group of people who were more close minded and blinded by their own biased to the point of bigotry outside of Air Amerika.
And 10 million years from now, the Europan flibbity-wumpus people will argue with eachother over whether life arose there spontaneously, or was "seeded" from space.
Never thought we'd be the I in ID.
I'm sorry, I've completely lost where in any of this religious faith actually counts for anything at all. I like my metaphysics with a sprig of logic; what business does faith have in an argument?
In an argument about the difference between science and religion.
In a science argument, religion has about as much relevance and philosophy, none. In a discussion about religion and science (like this one), religion has exactly 50% relevance, with science taking up the other 50%.
Since you have no grasp of religion, think of it as philosophy. Except, think of it as a philosophy that means more than life itself to a vast majority of the world's population. When seeking answers to quantum entanglement, are you going to refer to DesCartes? I hope not. When contemplating the meaning of life, are you going to refer to , Hawking or Einstein? Maybe you should ask Schrödinger and his cat. Again, I hope not. Some questions science can not answer. Same for religion and philosophy.
Maybe that will help.
You think religion counts as an explanation? Seriously? Faith is an explanation now? Screw that.
OK, let's try this one more time. Try to keep up this time.
Religion does not need an explanation. Religion is not an explanation. Religion is based on faith, not logic. It does not require evidence or explanation. It's just believed. That is what faith is. Religion does not care about how things happen. It is completely irrelevant to faith.
Is it science? No. Is it a substitution for science? For some yes. Others like me, no. While there may be some overlap, neither can prove the other. Fortunately, neither relies on the other.
You might want to google 'block universe' and stop referring to the bible everytime you're in danger of having to think logically.
Uh, I didn't. I said science uses relativity and quantum mechanics to try to explain the beginning of the Universe. Religion uses the Bible, Torah, Koran or whatever. I was explaining that science and religion ask different questions and therefor have different answers and methodology. Science is based on empirical evidence from observation, experimentation, mathematics and theory. Religion is based on faith. They are apples and oranges. You shouldn't point fingers every time you're in danger of facing a different point of view.
Besides, we are talking about science and religion. Block Universe is a philosophical argument. Apples, oranges, and grapes.