A Tripolation

Sounds to me like you just don't have enough life experience to realize those aren't "random whack jobs" websites. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/genetic-engineering Here...GE is killing us and our tomatoes will turn into Terminator plants and eat US!!! OH NOES!!!!! And yes, GreenPeace throws some money at law-makers, making them a de facto lobbyist group.

What would that have to do with it? If anything, where you live would increase your chance of left-crazies bombarding you with literature about the New World Order and how the government is taking control of the world.

No, just things I've witnessed in my short lifetime. I'm not google search savvy. I don't know how the heck these guys pull some of the stuff they do. Oh...basically any vegan product commercial implies that "pollution by farmers" crap. Are you telling me that you have never heard these claims from the far-left? Is that what you are saying?

All conservatives want to do away with seperation of church and state...we want an Orwellian society...we are against women's rights...we are ignorant bible-thumpers bent on converting everyone to our religion...farmers pollute the land by using fertilizer...the world could survive on organic food...take your pick.

I consider myself to be more libertarian than conservative, so I'd have to say that liberals and libertarians aren't really in the same boat on a lot of matters...a whole lot actually. Unless I have the fundamentals of libertarianism confused. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That my guess about Obama on gun control was right...that the statistical truth was proven in Obama by what he says and his voting record. That my bet paid off, and that the bet wasn't just me blithely spouting off about Obama, and that I was basing my opinion on what I know about him and liberals in general. That's what it is supposed to show you.

And this is how I feel about gay marriage I don't support it, but I won't oppose it.

Sisyphus: See post above this one.

That's your opinion, sweetheart. Try not to sensationalize your next post as much. Because there are absolutely NO liberal factions that do this. Michael Moore is a figment of my imagination. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's common knowledge that most liberals support incredibly strict gun laws, or no guns at all, just as it is common knowledge that most conservatives oppose abortion. So yeah, I'm fairly certain Obama's views on guns are different than mine. I may be wrong, but what reason do I have to not think that when it is statistically true?

So doesn't that mean you HAVE to support incestous marriage, JillSwift?

Agreed wholeheartedly. And since all of my arguments are highlighted above, and each of them discounted with a rational vehemence, I guess that means I'm out.

Ok, thanks for the suggestion. Any suggestions for one that deals with time and time dilation and relativity and such matters?

Ok, but if I was a small business owner, first thing I'd do is drop the private insurance and go to the cheap government option...is that not a problem? Or did he address that and I missed it?

Hmmm, ok. Evolution and its related concepts are kinda hard for me to grasp. Back to the thread. Just because I'm "predispositioned" to a belief, that doesn't explain why I happen to believe that way does it? I'm genetically predispositioned to be an alcoholic, but I've never drank an alcoholic beverage in my entire life (because I choose not to). So what's the point of the video? We may be predispositioned that way, but such an indifferent thing as evolution certainly can't explain away human belief, imho. We are complex things...that apparently arose from non-complex things. Sorry if this thread isn't about this post either.

So this thread is about how evolution has indirectly given humans a predisposition towards belief in a deity? I actually thought forufes had some good points, though he was incredibly rude about it. And if you wouldn't mind clarifying iNow, can't evolution be considered to have a direction of improvement? Since only improvements are able to survive, we only have improvements in species due to evolution, right? There's no such thing as "de-evolution" is there? Like how distance always has to be a positive value (not magnitude), evolution always has to be an improvement?

Ha, I just know there's an awesome joke here referencing Schrödinger's cat, but for the life of me I just can't think of it.

Well, would you mind explaining the differences to me? Is it that the popular one seeks to entertain whilst the textbook is more focused on theorems and proofs and math? If so, then I would prefer the University textbook.

The unions actually really do make it INCREDIBLY difficult to fire bad teachers. I can't imagine how much more I would know if all of my teachers had been as excellent as my really great ones. And the bad thing is, teachers here didn't teach us the material, instead, they prepared us for the standardized tests at teh end of the year. I can't tell you how many times I was taught the "proper" way to write out essays instead of learning about the content that would be the topic of the essays. It's sad really...as standardized testing is one of the only means to gauge how effective a teacher is. But then, the test itself changes the teaching environment, so how could it help?? Such a complicated issue that is mired in Beauracracy.

As an Engineering major, physics courses aren't really a focus for me, though I wish they were. I know a lot of what is considered "classical physics" as that is obviously very important in engineering. But I don't know what "time dilation" is, or what "self-consisting solutions" are, or what the heck String Theory is even talking about. Could anyone recommend a good introductory book on these matters? I have looked online for some material, but it all seems to require a degree in Physics just to look at it. Anything on the level of "educated laymen" would be preferable. I'm thinking of a style like that of Michio Kaku, whose "Physics of the Impossible" book was informative and easy to read. Thanks for any suggestions.

No...I understand that God cannot be used as a termination point, or the single cause of everything, because then that leads to the "well who created him". I'm surprised you would think I would use such fallacious logic, iNow Hmmm...well it doesn't seem to me that the explanations posed by the speaker could hold for EVERY SINGLE human being. His reasons are not the reasons I consciously believe in a God.

I was under the impression that causality was a universal effect. That everything occured because of something else caused it? And I did assume everything was created, be it by a seed or a nebula or a deity...am I in the wrong to think this?

I see. Well, seeing as how I didn't understand any of the nueroscience he was speaking of, I don't suppose I'll be able to ask any good questions. Would you mind summing up what he was trying to say? (Other than we evolved a certain way, and this led to a general belief in a deity)

What did the Hispanic fire chief name his two sons? Jose and Hose B!!! ahahaha