I don't know why CNN should be alarmed about it. EVERYONE knows that CNN is run by Democrats. They don't call it the Clinton News Network for nothing. It is a well known bastion for liberal opinion since its liberal founder Ted Turner started it.
Fox PLAINLY stated that he did INDEED NOT TAKE his meds to prove a political point. Fox lies, and people die. Why? Oh to get a CURE! For what? Nothing at all. The lie sailed the bill on through, the people of Missouri are saddled with a 3 Billion dollar EMBRYONIC stem cell research bill. Be sure and send an email out to us when the cure, which has to come at the expense of breathing human beings, makes its way out. Fox proved nothing more than lies work even though embryonic stem cells don't.
I advocate the withdrawal of US troops from Islamic countries so that they will no longer die to protect the leftist cowards sitting safe from Islamic law back here in their homes. Let 1,000,000 mosques bloom.
People outside of programming education have no earthly idea what it is like to try to teach info Sys at the college level. All 4 year colleges tend to teach to the engineer level, where most programming jobs are not, and not enough and in many cases not at all at the database programming level.
There are very few jobs programming an OS for a company or game programming or supercomputer. Indeed, most of the jobs are in the database programming area.
I teach VB, C++, and JAVA at a junior college. You would not believe the number of CS students who come to me for courses in database programming for these languages which were not taught at the 4 year level. Like making engineers nothing but mathematicians doing technical work, CS courses leave the industry demanded languages up to the graduate to learn on the fly AFTER they graduate. The mentality is that they will teach the theory and leave the piddly grunt work (considered beneath them) to the individual to learn on their own later. Why practical, industry demanded knowledge and skills are disdained I am not sure, except for the fact that higher ed tends to still hold on to the trappings of a college being a finishing school for wealthy people and not a very useful thing to industry.
I have heard arguments to the effect that "well, the dominant language changes so often that you could never keep up! So what? That is why you update the curriculum every 18-24 months! The value of higher ed is also questionable when most graduates spend more than half their time in courses that have nothing to do with their major anyway. It makes them more rounded, e.g. knowing a bunch of impractical junk about a lot things that no one will hire you for (like feminist studies), but no real expert and practical knowledge about anything. Being that many people are now are self educating, like the inventor of virtual reality who was a high school dropout, colleges may eventually go by the wayside as silly and useless keepers of odd knowlege, a pointless diversion from real life in the future.
Holy Cow you knocked that one out of the park! That was exactly what this researcher found. Before computers it was TV in the classroom. It was going to REVOLUTIONIZE teaching and learning, MAKING LEARNING FUN, with little geniuses running everywhere. Before that it was other multimedia using filmstrips, films, etc. ALL measurable forms of testing have shown that just the opposite has happened. Modern kids now expect to be entertained nearly all the time.
Sometimes learning is NOT fun. Sometimes, (OK, a LOT of times), it takes a lot of effort, concentration, and discipline. Usually the breakthroughs happen when someone thinks about a single subject/problem for a long time until they find a solution. Most youth don't want to go to that length of effort. Indeed, most of them have turned the channel 30 times, read about the next flying saucer/Elvis is alive/ Bigfoot blurb, or gone to the next screen of warcraft by that time. As grades fall pressure mounts from administrators to dumb down the curriculum even more!!
Oh yes. And, by the way, the amount of school money spent on computers in just the 1990s alone was: ***$78 BILLION*** (3 guesses as to what Bill Gates' cut on that was). The number of additional teachers (to bring the student/teacher ratio down) and new school buildings that could have bought is mind boggling! We are going to be lucky if we don't wake up one day to a scene off of Dawn of the Dead, with our little geniuses who know nothing and have the attention span of a monkey!
A fascinating book by Phillip Oppenheimer called "Flickering MIND: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom" addresses just this problem.
There is a comfortable illusion, never challenged, that kids LEARN from computers - No data anywhere support this! IN fact, by any measurable standard like SAT scores, graduation rates, school GPA, etc., the opposite has happened.
Studies have shown that anyone given a computer who could not afford one spent their time surfing, playing games, ordering junk online, reading about BIgfoot, flying saucers, movie trivia, and just PLAYING. Pretty much the stuff we do on slashdot, but NOT learning anything useful. Using a computer gives people the FEELING that they are getting something done or learning something, acting modern and sophisticated and on the ball. Great discoveries, scientific breakthroughs, alternative energies, pretty much anything that launched the modern age happened without computers or the internet. Those things happened in chemistry labs, biomedical labs, under microscopes, particle labs, mechanical shops, garages, etc. It is as much a mistake to think kids learn, or learn anything very useful, playing online (which is usually what they do). No, kids don't learn much from computers, just how to use computers.
And no one should say there are plenty of free online tutorials in math, chemistry, bio, physics, etc. There are indeed. And there are plenty of people who can use and learn from those places. BUT everyone should understand that kids don't spend much time in those places. Networked games, chat rooms, instant messages, and entertainment sites - THAT is where they spend their time. Computers will never replace good teachers or even match their possibilities.
No, the ocean currents are not changing. Ocean currents are determined by WIND, not politics. Wind is caused by the sun, and so far Albert Gore has not said the sun will go out. You can believe whatever you like, even though nature is not cooperating with your theory. The southern hemisphere is not listening to Al Gore. They have had record breaking cold in 2007, and the the total ice in the antarctic is increasing. Yes, even if it IS a hoax we're only 49 trillion dollars in debt, whats another few hundred trillion being that high taxes change the weather. The arctic is supposed to be melting even while my birdbath is not. Funny that.
~~~Sorry, no proof of that whatsoever. Also no proof that it did not happen, but science requires proof. There are fossils of very large palm fronds in the Canadian Arctic. The earth's atmosphere millenia ago was DRASTICALLY different from the one we have now and EVERYTHING in earth science points to that scientific fact.
Sorry, no proof of that whatsoever. Also no proof that it did not happen, but science requires proof. There are fossils of very large palm fronds in the Canadian Arctic. The earth's atmosphere millenia ago was DRASTICALLY different from the one we have now and EVERYTHING in earth science points to that scientific fact.
You dingalings have everything wrong again. Evolutionists claim dinosaurs and man never existed together in the same time period. So if you do believe them then you have to disregard your own comments here.
It was MUCH warmer in the 1930s, but don't confuse anyone with facts when money is to be made off the global warming hoax. I run a tree farm and idiots (from up north, mainly) pay me for their "Carbon Credits". If idiots give me money I promise you I will take it. They might wake up one day and realize how stupid they are, or how they've been had, but don't count on it.
The only thing that would happen if we actually had a significantly warmer planet is less people dying from freezing to death every year and more arable farmland in Canada. . . . . . . . . AND less natural gas and heating oil used in the winter, AND less pollution, and . . . . you get the picture.
Yep, and then they turn around and expect us to swallow the hoax that goes "world climate was unchanged until the 20th century". Typical Orwellian double-speak in its purest form.
Well well well,
I guess this kind of puts an end to the argument that the world climate was unchanged until the 20th century since dinosaurs lived in that area. Lets hear some brainmush from the global warming sky-is-falling idiots now, about how the earth was NEVER as warm as it is now.
It amazes me that new facts like this come out every week, sometimes even every day and it never penetrates the thickness of global warming idiots. Public education's moment to shine.
Oh, silly me. Then your parents came from nothing. Brilliant. No, your parents were apes that lost their hair, they came from a microbe that came from nothing. Ah, something from nothing. True science really supports that.
If you are in fact totally not sure that nuclear power is safe by now, you will never be. We've been using it for over 70 years now in the US and most non-communist countries with no incident. Knowing where my power comes from in my location, it is mostly nuclear and partially coal. It could be 100% pollutant and ghg free nuclear if the approval process for a plant did not take decades and millions of dollars paid to politicians JUST to get construction going.
Nuclear has a half-life of 12,000 years, and yet, COAL derived mercury NEVER decays. If I ingested mercury tomorrow and died, my body could decompose and the mercury in my corpse be transported by water to people far away, enter their system and kill them. So tell me how coal is safer than nuclear?
Again, for a 50 cent charge of electricity I could drive 40 miles. It cost me about $70 a week in gasoline versus about $7 for electrical and if only it were all nuclear everything would be fine. Complete government control of a nuclear plant does happen in profit-free places, just like Chernobyl, and of course the soviet made K-19 Widowmaker. There is simply no point in not using clean nuclear now.
Sorry, no dice.
If anyone bothers to read this blurb, they never once claimed to create anything resembling life or anything in the life structure. They never created anything that would be a precursor to life. They never created anything that could be added to something to create life. They only claimed to "provide a new scenario for a key step".
The false statement that life is widely believed to have emerged as short strands of DNA could have been proven true if only that is what they did. But again, of course, they did not.
The "pre-biotic soup" is getting really cold, having been invented by lunatics.
airpeepee strikes again!! He has no science, just his atheism and he thinks science somehow supports it or more specifically, Darwinism. His real problem is science since not only does it not support something coming from nothing, it definitely warms against the use of pot.
Hey airpeepee!!! At times when you are not high on pot try to keep reminding yourself that you came from absolutely nothing and it will make the horror of the fact you will be judged according to your works, and very soon at that, seem remote. . . . . . ..for a short time anyway.
The pay is great, and you don't have to think. I guess for you, Groupthink means thinking about ANYTHING except Oil. I WILL indeed think for myself, k?
Does it "scare and sicken you" Gilligan??? Reeeeeaaalllyy???
All of the objections here are solved with either pebble bed reactors, or fusion reactors which more completely use up (if that is the proper term) the nuclear material and result in very little waste. No carbon, extremely cheap, and we need it 20 years ago.
Even in the worst case scenario on here it is a million times better than coal.
I think the oil companies are suppressing it not because they are the private sector but because there is no way to compete with it.
All of this could very easily be applied to the airlines. Planes are built by the private sector, airlines are owned by the private sector, and investors do make money off of them. As for safety, flying is safer than driving a car.
Arkansas Nuclear One has been run by the private sector at a substantial profit by Arkansas Power and Light (Now called Entergy) for nearly a half century with no problem. AND it is still going strong.
It is the absolute lowest cost way of generating electricity and with the new pebble bed reactors, which are walk away safe, there is now no reason not to. The oil companies, though, will run a 24/7 campaign to try to scare the public into rejecting it. They know there is only one form of energy out there that can easily compete with oil and nuclear is it. With new pluggable hybrid cars out there you can go 40 miles on a 50 cent charge. At todays gasoline prices that 40 miles approaches $10. Again, there is NO way for big oil to compete, so they want it stopped. And they are willing to spend ANY amount of money to quash it. They'll hire armies of Gilligan's out there if that is what it takes. If France and Japan have been doing it for this long as well as so many other advanced countries, we should probably wake up to Nuclear once and for all.
If you applied the parent's logic of cost in all things, NOTHING would ever be worth doing, even a simple house. You could not build a simple house - think about it: No way to guarantee it could hold up in an earthquake, it might catch fire, a tornado could kill you if you lived in it, who will pay for the cleanup when it gets old?, termites could weaken it, are all the component parts safe to ingest of inhale? wiring in the house could shock and kill you, someone could drown in the tub, fall down the stairs, on and on. Nuclear is the answer, particularly pebble bed reactors. The sheeple need to wake up to the answer sitting RIGHT under their nose.
There are places on this earth where all profit is illegal and those places are almost uninhabitable. Some of the most dangerous and out of control people on earth run their countries with the idea that profit is evil and their people starve to death in many cases. Cost controls are sometimes done by governments but even then no one has a big incentive to do so. Pebble bed reactors are the answer. The private sector can do it and they are walk away safe and can be located very near large cities so that there is very little line loss like there is over long distances. The safety of these things are built in to the design of the facility. Nuclear power is about 1,000,000 times safer than flying in an airplane, and I don't see anyone howling about how we can't take the chance on passengers flying through the sky by the millions each day. Arkansas Power and Light is private energy company and it has safely maintained nuclear one in Russellville for almost half a century now.
Organic material can always be used to feed life of various kinds. It does not create life. If life were not present the material would not create it, although the life might die without it. What kind of schools have YOU BEEN GOING TO??? Maybe you watched Transformers the Movie too many times or something. That was a movie!!
"Life" is a multitude interconnected biochemical processes - unless you want to ignore all advances over the centuries in chemistry, physics, biology and medicine.
Complete agreement on the first half, no question. After the dash, I will leave that to evolutionists since they have been doing a real good job of that now for almost 2 centuries now. When you have people who are supposed to use the scientific method to hypothesize you expect them to dismiss them when there is too much evidence against it. Ever read Dawkins?? This guy finds problems in reality before he can find anything wrong with the theory. Homosexuality, for example. Since he can't square it with evolution, he says there is a problem with reality. And I nearly agree with him. Its a fact in reality, but the problem is with the theory, not reality.
Fossils require situations where organisms are encased and preserved over a HUGE amount of time. An intermediate species for instance just 10,000 years ago would not leave a fossil record - why would you look for it?
There are fossils of OAK TREES fully preserved in the vertical position. That means only one thing: RAPID SEDIMENTATION! Most likely due to catastrophic natural events. I visited a Colorado State Park where they have the bases of REDWOOD trees up to about 10 feet totally fossilized due to volcanic dust settling to that height. And there are places around the world where many fossils are fully intact for the same reason. The coelacanth fish was thought extinct for 38 million years until someone caught one off the coast of Africa. The fossil they dated at that length of years was identical to the living one. Apparently it forgot to obey Darwin. Same thing for the Borneo rat recently discovered. Apparently it too did not read Darwin.
Speciesation where two cultures of the same original bird species evolved into two separate groups that could not interbreed HAS been observed, as other articles in this thread has pointed out, but I guess you ignore that. I am sorry but the same species not breeding is not a new species. There has got to be more than that. They are still birds. That also cuts off genetic variety and promotes inbreeding, which also tends to be anti-survival. Many humans cannot breed due to infertility between them. That does not make them a new species. Same thing that Darwin himself observed with the Finches in the Galapagos Islands. They are still there (after nearly 2 centuries), they are still birds, and they are still Finches!!
Its ok by me if you run from abiogenesis, since it does not exist. I have yet to see anyone actually defend it successfully. Then you can play with the definition of speciation and claim the tiniest of any kind of change at all is evolution. But if indeed it were true science it would be fairly obvious and not need an excuse industry. All the fruit flys that they have been poinsoning, radiating would have turned into something else after 100 years and literally thousands of generations
I am not backing down from anything I claim about no life from death. It is obvious and proven 24/7 (you know that). Miracles, however, are not science, are not 24/7, and there is no law for them. Now, if you want to say a miracle occurred in the first life on earth we have agreement.
Genetic information backs that up.
It was never explained that way to me as a child, both my parents had problems with religion, and I was a LIFELONG believer in evolution until I saw many evolutionists made speechless when presented with simple questions about evolution I thought were answered LONG ago! It was only after a long period of seeing this repeated over and over with people like G.G. Thompson (Mr. Evolution) that I realized that evolutionists were not being asked any real questions that would shine a light on the science behind it. THAT is why it lived on past the time of Darwin and not dismissed out of hand. It fit someone's atheistic belief system. No, at that point I realized I had been had and that there was something else going on to explain the deception. Simple questions about biochemistry, physics, cosmology, animal and plant physiology that point out problems with evolution are routinely minimized, ignored, and not talked about when it comes to evolution.
If you think there is nothing beyond the currently detectable universe (and I don't mean something like UV light before it was discovered, I mean other dimensions) there are evolutionists like Isaac Asimov, A.C. Clarke, etc. that would quickly disagree with you there.
I say would have but Asimov is dead and there are plenty like them who would disagree strenuously. Oh, and about there being no room for change, the only constant in the universe, as far as we can tell, is change. That is a far cry from saying the little hummingbird's parents were T-Rex. Don't laugh, they are seriously trying to make just that claim right now.
Perfect!
You now have the answer and I did not even have to point it out to you. There is the origin of the species! Life can only come from life. Always has and always will. And when something happens in reality that trancends the laws of the universe you have a miracle, as was the case of the resurrection. The life of God bringing life to non-living material. Don't try that at home, though, you have to be a lot more powerful.
Believe the truth and you won't be chasing Darwinian fairytales.
Yeah, I will not cry over the very real * * * LAW OF GRAVITY * * *. I believe I am arguing with a toddler that believes life came from dead matter. But its alright, you'll forget about this as soon as you go back to your room and smoke a bowl.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why CNN should be alarmed about it. EVERYONE knows that CNN is run by Democrats. They don't call it the Clinton News Network for nothing. It is a well known bastion for liberal opinion since its liberal founder Ted Turner started it.
Fox PLAINLY stated that he did INDEED NOT TAKE his meds to prove a political point. Fox lies, and people die. Why? Oh to get a CURE! For what? Nothing at all. The lie sailed the bill on through, the people of Missouri are saddled with a 3 Billion dollar EMBRYONIC stem cell research bill. Be sure and send an email out to us when the cure, which has to come at the expense of breathing human beings, makes its way out. Fox proved nothing more than lies work even though embryonic stem cells don't.
I advocate the withdrawal of US troops from Islamic countries so that they will no longer die to protect the leftist cowards sitting safe from Islamic law back here in their homes. Let 1,000,000 mosques bloom.
People outside of programming education have no earthly idea what it is like to try to teach info Sys at the college level. All 4 year colleges tend to teach to the engineer level, where most programming jobs are not, and not enough and in many cases not at all at the database programming level.
There are very few jobs programming an OS for a company or game programming or supercomputer. Indeed, most of the jobs are in the database programming area.
I teach VB, C++, and JAVA at a junior college. You would not believe the number of CS students who come to me for courses in database programming for these languages which were not taught at the 4 year level. Like making engineers nothing but mathematicians doing technical work, CS courses leave the industry demanded languages up to the graduate to learn on the fly AFTER they graduate. The mentality is that they will teach the theory and leave the piddly grunt work (considered beneath them) to the individual to learn on their own later. Why practical, industry demanded knowledge and skills are disdained I am not sure, except for the fact that higher ed tends to still hold on to the trappings of a college being a finishing school for wealthy people and not a very useful thing to industry.
I have heard arguments to the effect that "well, the dominant language changes so often that you could never keep up! So what? That is why you update the curriculum every 18-24 months! The value of higher ed is also questionable when most graduates spend more than half their time in courses that have nothing to do with their major anyway. It makes them more rounded, e.g. knowing a bunch of impractical junk about a lot things that no one will hire you for (like feminist studies), but no real expert and practical knowledge about anything. Being that many people are now are self educating, like the inventor of virtual reality who was a high school dropout, colleges may eventually go by the wayside as silly and useless keepers of odd knowlege, a pointless diversion from real life in the future.
Holy Cow you knocked that one out of the park! That was exactly what this researcher found. Before computers it was TV in the classroom. It was going to REVOLUTIONIZE teaching and learning, MAKING LEARNING FUN, with little geniuses running everywhere. Before that it was other multimedia using filmstrips, films, etc. ALL measurable forms of testing have shown that just the opposite has happened. Modern kids now expect to be entertained nearly all the time.
Sometimes learning is NOT fun. Sometimes, (OK, a LOT of times), it takes a lot of effort, concentration, and discipline. Usually the breakthroughs happen when someone thinks about a single subject/problem for a long time until they find a solution. Most youth don't want to go to that length of effort. Indeed, most of them have turned the channel 30 times, read about the next flying saucer/Elvis is alive/ Bigfoot blurb, or gone to the next screen of warcraft by that time. As grades fall pressure mounts from administrators to dumb down the curriculum even more!!
Oh yes. And, by the way, the amount of school money spent on computers in just the 1990s alone was: ***$78 BILLION*** (3 guesses as to what Bill Gates' cut on that was). The number of additional teachers (to bring the student/teacher ratio down) and new school buildings that could have bought is mind boggling! We are going to be lucky if we don't wake up one day to a scene off of Dawn of the Dead, with our little geniuses who know nothing and have the attention span of a monkey!
A fascinating book by Phillip Oppenheimer called "Flickering MIND: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom" addresses just this problem.
There is a comfortable illusion, never challenged, that kids LEARN from computers - No data anywhere support this! IN fact, by any measurable standard like SAT scores, graduation rates, school GPA, etc., the opposite has happened.
Studies have shown that anyone given a computer who could not afford one spent their time surfing, playing games, ordering junk online, reading about BIgfoot, flying saucers, movie trivia, and just PLAYING. Pretty much the stuff we do on slashdot, but NOT learning anything useful. Using a computer gives people the FEELING that they are getting something done or learning something, acting modern and sophisticated and on the ball. Great discoveries, scientific breakthroughs, alternative energies, pretty much anything that launched the modern age happened without computers or the internet. Those things happened in chemistry labs, biomedical labs, under microscopes, particle labs, mechanical shops, garages, etc. It is as much a mistake to think kids learn, or learn anything very useful, playing online (which is usually what they do). No, kids don't learn much from computers, just how to use computers.
And no one should say there are plenty of free online tutorials in math, chemistry, bio, physics, etc. There are indeed. And there are plenty of people who can use and learn from those places. BUT everyone should understand that kids don't spend much time in those places. Networked games, chat rooms, instant messages, and entertainment sites - THAT is where they spend their time. Computers will never replace good teachers or even match their possibilities.
No, the ocean currents are not changing. Ocean currents are determined by WIND, not politics. Wind is caused by the sun, and so far Albert Gore has not said the sun will go out. You can believe whatever you like, even though nature is not cooperating with your theory. The southern hemisphere is not listening to Al Gore. They have had record breaking cold in 2007, and the the total ice in the antarctic is increasing. Yes, even if it IS a hoax we're only 49 trillion dollars in debt, whats another few hundred trillion being that high taxes change the weather. The arctic is supposed to be melting even while my birdbath is not. Funny that.
~~~Sorry, no proof of that whatsoever. Also no proof that it did not happen, but science requires proof. There are fossils of very large palm fronds in the Canadian Arctic. The earth's atmosphere millenia ago was DRASTICALLY different from the one we have now and EVERYTHING in earth science points to that scientific fact.
Sorry, no proof of that whatsoever. Also no proof that it did not happen, but science requires proof. There are fossils of very large palm fronds in the Canadian Arctic. The earth's atmosphere millenia ago was DRASTICALLY different from the one we have now and EVERYTHING in earth science points to that scientific fact.
You dingalings have everything wrong again. Evolutionists claim dinosaurs and man never existed together in the same time period. So if you do believe them then you have to disregard your own comments here.
It was MUCH warmer in the 1930s, but don't confuse anyone with facts when money is to be made off the global warming hoax. I run a tree farm and idiots (from up north, mainly) pay me for their "Carbon Credits". If idiots give me money I promise you I will take it. They might wake up one day and realize how stupid they are, or how they've been had, but don't count on it.
The only thing that would happen if we actually had a significantly warmer planet is less people dying from freezing to death every year and more arable farmland in Canada. . . . . . . . . AND less natural gas and heating oil used in the winter, AND less pollution, and . . . . you get the picture.
Yep, and then they turn around and expect us to swallow the hoax that goes "world climate was unchanged until the 20th century". Typical Orwellian double-speak in its purest form.
Well well well,
I guess this kind of puts an end to the argument that the world climate was unchanged until the 20th century since dinosaurs lived in that area. Lets hear some brainmush from the global warming sky-is-falling idiots now, about how the earth was NEVER as warm as it is now.
It amazes me that new facts like this come out every week, sometimes even every day and it never penetrates the thickness of global warming idiots. Public education's moment to shine.
Eye suport publick skools!!!
Oh, silly me. Then your parents came from nothing. Brilliant. No, your parents were apes that lost their hair, they came from a microbe that came from nothing. Ah, something from nothing. True science really supports that.
If you are in fact totally not sure that nuclear power is safe by now, you will never be. We've been using it for over 70 years now in the US and most non-communist countries with no incident. Knowing where my power comes from in my location, it is mostly nuclear and partially coal. It could be 100% pollutant and ghg free nuclear if the approval process for a plant did not take decades and millions of dollars paid to politicians JUST to get construction going.
Nuclear has a half-life of 12,000 years, and yet, COAL derived mercury NEVER decays. If I ingested mercury tomorrow and died, my body could decompose and the mercury in my corpse be transported by water to people far away, enter their system and kill them. So tell me how coal is safer than nuclear?
Again, for a 50 cent charge of electricity I could drive 40 miles. It cost me about $70 a week in gasoline versus about $7 for electrical and if only it were all nuclear everything would be fine. Complete government control of a nuclear plant does happen in profit-free places, just like Chernobyl, and of course the soviet made K-19 Widowmaker. There is simply no point in not using clean nuclear now.
Sorry, no dice. If anyone bothers to read this blurb, they never once claimed to create anything resembling life or anything in the life structure. They never created anything that would be a precursor to life. They never created anything that could be added to something to create life. They only claimed to "provide a new scenario for a key step".
The false statement that life is widely believed to have emerged as short strands of DNA could have been proven true if only that is what they did. But again, of course, they did not.
The "pre-biotic soup" is getting really cold, having been invented by lunatics.
airpeepee strikes again!! He has no science, just his atheism and he thinks science somehow supports it or more specifically, Darwinism. His real problem is science since not only does it not support something coming from nothing, it definitely warms against the use of pot.
Hey airpeepee!!! At times when you are not high on pot try to keep reminding yourself that you came from absolutely nothing and it will make the horror of the fact you will be judged according to your works, and very soon at that, seem remote. . . . . . . .for a short time anyway.
And lets get going with : http://www.iworkforbigoil.com/
and end with http://www.commondreamsofbigoilexecs.com/
The pay is great, and you don't have to think. I guess for you, Groupthink means thinking about ANYTHING except Oil. I WILL indeed think for myself, k?
Does it "scare and sicken you" Gilligan??? Reeeeeaaalllyy???
All of the objections here are solved with either pebble bed reactors, or fusion reactors which more completely use up (if that is the proper term) the nuclear material and result in very little waste. No carbon, extremely cheap, and we need it 20 years ago.
Even in the worst case scenario on here it is a million times better than coal.
I think the oil companies are suppressing it not because they are the private sector but because there is no way to compete with it.
All of this could very easily be applied to the airlines. Planes are built by the private sector, airlines are owned by the private sector, and investors do make money off of them. As for safety, flying is safer than driving a car.
Arkansas Nuclear One has been run by the private sector at a substantial profit by Arkansas Power and Light (Now called Entergy) for nearly a half century with no problem. AND it is still going strong.
It is the absolute lowest cost way of generating electricity and with the new pebble bed reactors, which are walk away safe, there is now no reason not to. The oil companies, though, will run a 24/7 campaign to try to scare the public into rejecting it. They know there is only one form of energy out there that can easily compete with oil and nuclear is it. With new pluggable hybrid cars out there you can go 40 miles on a 50 cent charge. At todays gasoline prices that 40 miles approaches $10. Again, there is NO way for big oil to compete, so they want it stopped. And they are willing to spend ANY amount of money to quash it. They'll hire armies of Gilligan's out there if that is what it takes. If France and Japan have been doing it for this long as well as so many other advanced countries, we should probably wake up to Nuclear once and for all.
If you applied the parent's logic of cost in all things, NOTHING would ever be worth doing, even a simple house. You could not build a simple house - think about it: No way to guarantee it could hold up in an earthquake, it might catch fire, a tornado could kill you if you lived in it, who will pay for the cleanup when it gets old?, termites could weaken it, are all the component parts safe to ingest of inhale? wiring in the house could shock and kill you, someone could drown in the tub, fall down the stairs, on and on. Nuclear is the answer, particularly pebble bed reactors. The sheeple need to wake up to the answer sitting RIGHT under their nose.
There are places on this earth where all profit is illegal and those places are almost uninhabitable. Some of the most dangerous and out of control people on earth run their countries with the idea that profit is evil and their people starve to death in many cases. Cost controls are sometimes done by governments but even then no one has a big incentive to do so. Pebble bed reactors are the answer. The private sector can do it and they are walk away safe and can be located very near large cities so that there is very little line loss like there is over long distances. The safety of these things are built in to the design of the facility. Nuclear power is about 1,000,000 times safer than flying in an airplane, and I don't see anyone howling about how we can't take the chance on passengers flying through the sky by the millions each day. Arkansas Power and Light is private energy company and it has safely maintained nuclear one in Russellville for almost half a century now.
Its ok by me if you run from abiogenesis, since it does not exist. I have yet to see anyone actually defend it successfully. Then you can play with the definition of speciation and claim the tiniest of any kind of change at all is evolution. But if indeed it were true science it would be fairly obvious and not need an excuse industry. All the fruit flys that they have been poinsoning, radiating would have turned into something else after 100 years and literally thousands of generations
I am not backing down from anything I claim about no life from death. It is obvious and proven 24/7 (you know that). Miracles, however, are not science, are not 24/7, and there is no law for them. Now, if you want to say a miracle occurred in the first life on earth we have agreement.
Genetic information backs that up.
It was never explained that way to me as a child, both my parents had problems with religion, and I was a LIFELONG believer in evolution until I saw many evolutionists made speechless when presented with simple questions about evolution I thought were answered LONG ago! It was only after a long period of seeing this repeated over and over with people like G.G. Thompson (Mr. Evolution) that I realized that evolutionists were not being asked any real questions that would shine a light on the science behind it. THAT is why it lived on past the time of Darwin and not dismissed out of hand. It fit someone's atheistic belief system. No, at that point I realized I had been had and that there was something else going on to explain the deception. Simple questions about biochemistry, physics, cosmology, animal and plant physiology that point out problems with evolution are routinely minimized, ignored, and not talked about when it comes to evolution.
If you think there is nothing beyond the currently detectable universe (and I don't mean something like UV light before it was discovered, I mean other dimensions) there are evolutionists like Isaac Asimov, A.C. Clarke, etc. that would quickly disagree with you there.
I say would have but Asimov is dead and there are plenty like them who would disagree strenuously.
Oh, and about there being no room for change, the only constant in the universe, as far as we can tell, is change. That is a far cry from saying the little hummingbird's parents were T-Rex. Don't laugh, they are seriously trying to make just that claim right now.
Perfect! You now have the answer and I did not even have to point it out to you. There is the origin of the species! Life can only come from life. Always has and always will. And when something happens in reality that trancends the laws of the universe you have a miracle, as was the case of the resurrection. The life of God bringing life to non-living material. Don't try that at home, though, you have to be a lot more powerful.
Believe the truth and you won't be chasing Darwinian fairytales.
Yeah, I will not cry over the very real * * * LAW OF GRAVITY * * *. I believe I am arguing with a toddler that believes life came from dead matter. But its alright, you'll forget about this as soon as you go back to your room and smoke a bowl.