Phi for All

This reminds me of a waverly slithe. Nomen with the parthglen could summich thasterdly, but then my soraldic herfek got caught on Frunstin's beamish torgenfetzen. Talk about your soppy walwum!

I thought it was going to be like, OK, peel off 3" of skin from an orange. Keep doing this until the orange is completely peeled. Now, see if you can figure out how to put it back together!

That part just blows me away. Dems could have kept themselves in power ad infinitum if they had just given the people what they clearly wanted: health coverage that can't be canceled because you get sick, that doesn't bankrupt them if they get really sick, and that doesn't keep them from saving for their kid's educations. This just cements the public opinion that the politicians are either corrupt or inept or both.

The oil is mostly limonene and is very flammable. Do you purposely pick the wrong sub-forums in which to post your topics? You get it wrong an awful lot.

This is another big problem with your arguments. You start with the assumption that all the evidence so painstakingly and objectively accumulated by many scientists over many years is lies. You start with the assumption that the Earth is only 7000 years old, with only a hardline, fundamentalist interpretation of a work written for a barely literate population to back you up. Even when you can easily see that genetics (a science you seem to have more enthusiasm for) proves that the earth's creatures have been around much longer than 7000 years, you appear to ignore it because your initial belief is too sacred to stand up to contradiction. You insist that we be open-minded about God while you adopt the most narrow-minded of interpretations about what He meant by "days", an interpretation that the majority of Christians agree can't be true. If God created the Earth, and the evidence is buried there to for us to see, how is it that the evidence is lies we've made up? And why is it more magnificent for God to "poof" the world and it's flora and fauna into existence in six days rather than creating the universe and all it's mechanisms (including evolution) in an instant that expanded and spread His almighty grand design over the cosmos with a patience that spans billions of years? Again, that later interpretation would allow science to predict the physical mechanisms of reality while religion can explain things they understand through faith, and there need be no discrepancies.

I've always felt that the literal interpretation of the six "days" of creation in the Bible is the root cause for mistrust of evolutionary theory, not the claims of inerrancy. I'd be perfectly willing to cede that the discrepancies between whether man or beast was created first in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are a matter of non-literal interpretation, but if that's so then why be so adamant that the Hebrew word yom has to mean only a 24-hour day? Allow that yom (day) could be an indeterminate amount of time (as in, "back in the day", which is, after all, one of it's three meanings) and then evolution (forget the micro/macro garbage) can simply be one of God's mechanisms, as the Catholics believe. Then science can recognize what it is supposed to recognize, and leave the unobservable aspects to religion and faith. But as long as creationism insists on a single meaning for a single word, they do so against all the evidence that is available to modern science. They are then forced to fabricate all kinds of absurd reasons why a god would go to such lengths of deception to plant that evidence.

You've learned something on your own here, and that's just hoops. ALL can be learned from one single thing if you bear in mind that you're bare in mine. You KNOW what I'm jelly for and that makes you neoprene for sherpa.

I've studied life answers with an eye towards decoding pyramid methods, and I agree with what you BELIEVE. Now we need to determine if English is like a rock or if there's nothing worth finding when you're complex.

It's not really hostility, it's Doubt with a capital D, heavy on the capital. If there really was scientific proof of psi powers as the author claims, it would be in a lot more places than his bogus book. Remember, scientific proof has to satisfy peer review, which this obviously has not.

It's the amps that kill, and it wouldn't take much if it went directly through your heart.

I'm going to go to the movies while this takes effect.

We're on the third page of this thread and so far no one knows what "proof" you're talking about. You have failed, epically.

Soon he will ask for money. Is the dollar not the Greatest Value?

Oh, astrology. Why didn't I think of that? Now it makes sense.

You'll have to excuse us, because in the past some crazy people have come here with extraordinary claims and then insisted we take the time to do all the research by ourselves. I'm afraid all those other crazy people have spoiled it for your perfect vision, and made us very mistrusting of The Truth. Since your One World System is NOT crazy, could you explain some of it to us?

You have made an extraordinary claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Personal attacks through ad hominem fallacies are against the rules of this board, specifically Section 2.1a and Section 2.4.

Since you accept what you call "micro-E" for small changes over small amounts of time in a population, is it just your belief that the Earth is only 7000 years old that stands in your way regarding longer term evolution, what you call "macro-E"? What effect do you think your "micro-E" would have on populations a million years from now? It has always seemed to be the adherence to a literal interpretation of Genesis that makes some people claim that the mounds of evidence for speciation is not enough. They start with the assumption that the earth is young and therefore all the evidence must be wrong, no matter what staggering amounts of it there are. And I'm always amazed that they try to argue scientifically with logic like that.

I could see that being an explanation if gastrointestinal illness was on the decline, simply because you eat less when you're nauseated.

Have you read this book?

Hitting "Enter" and going from Brain Teaser to Epic Fail.

That's probably the main reason behind the lack of formal comparison. Those who profess young earth creationism can always question the faith of any followers who bring up objections. But I think there is also a lot of intellectual dishonesty involved when it's shown that creationist arguments have no merit, yet proponents keep ignoring the evidence they ask for and just flit off to some other place to make the same specious claims that were just refuted. To be fair, the YEC arguments always sound plausible to those who haven't studied evolution as thoroughly as they have creationism, but that's part of the problem too, the partial information that is pushed on to the person who is searching for answers. How long has the YEC crowd pushed the garbage about Lucy's knee joint being found kilometers away from the rest of the body, even after it's been proven that Willis took Johanson's comments out of context, never admitting that, in fact, Johanson was talking about the knee joint of a totally different fossil find, in relation to the location of Lucy's partial fossilized remains? False, but they still use it, and they know it's false, but they still use it, and they'll use it as long as their students continue to fail to check it out for themselves (again to be fair, four major YEC proponents, Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, and Taylor, have agreed to stop using it as an argument, but none has offered a public retraction or their own explanation of the misconception).

It would be so gratifying to have someone with these anti-evolution views actually have the intellectual honesty to study the evidence at talkorigins.org instead of just listening to the anti-evolution side. How can anyone remain so adamant when they won't study both sides? Is it simply because creationism is quicker to study than the mounds of studies on evolution?

If you ignore Archaeopteryx, the transitional fossils recording the development of reptilian teeth to the differentiated teeth of mammals, the transformation of the reptilian stapes to the mammalian middle ear, and the thousands of other obvious pieces of evidence, then there's not much room for discussion. Claiming there is no evidence is a childish and uneducated argument. Using Darwin, a pioneer whose work has been expanded upon exponentially over the last 150 years, as a means to show evolution is flawed is like saying electricity can't exist because Ben Franklin's kite was flawed. In short, all your objections so far have been refuted many times over, but the people who insist as you do refuse to admit it. They keep saying there is no evidence, then they are shown the evidence, then they just keep saying there is no evidence.

"Character codes" and "lines" doesn't tell us enough to help. It's like telling the doctor you have marks on your body in the morning. He's not going to know what you mean or what's wrong with you without more detail.

Math is the language of physics. You will never be able to grasp the more complicated parts of physics without it. Don't worry, you're not alone. Many of us here, me included, will never have a complete understanding of physics, but we have learned not to dismiss what we don't fully grasp. You really need to stop referring to science as a "held belief". The scientific method ensures that evidence takes precedence over personal wishes and hopes. This is wrong. If a theory is valid, math can't be used to disprove it. Maths used in physics is not like statistics; you can't manipulate the numbers to give you the answer you want if it's not the right answer. Science wouldn't be the accurate methodology it is if one person's answers were just as valid as everyone else's. It's not so much about right and wrong as it is about the best working explanation of reality. You might try reading the work of the thousands of people who have worked and studied all their lives to produce answers their peers judge to be the best working explanation of reality before you start rewriting their work. No ridicule or condescension intended, EVER.