Moontanman

Indeed, at this point that is exactly how i see it...

More heart ache, no doubt... Worse future no doubt... Seriously rigney, the only serious difference between the two tickets is that one is supporting someone who is demostrably either stupid or a liar. The Romney ticket actually endorses creationism, both him and his running mater are so far out of contact with reality they think the earth is 6,000 years old, they think evolution is just a "theory", abstinence is the only birth control that can be allowed, and they want to teach the controversy... If this is not what they think then they are clearly liars, if they do then they are clearly stupid... either way they are endorsing ideas that are demonstrably wrong... Romney's supporters have over and over asserted that removing the rights of individuals based on nothing but the religious views written down in a 2500 year old book is the right thing to do. This book is clearly wrong about so much stuff that what little it says that cannot be confirmed is in serious doubt. They want to rule our contry and restrict the rights of it's citizens based on this book The fact they support more deregulation of banks is not surprising considering they are stupid or liars. Obama might not be much better but he does have 4 years experience in the job and is not so stupid he has no concept of reality... And Obama does not want to use a system of deregulation and top down economics that is clearly not working, even though it has had nearly free reign for decades... Now if you were looking at replacing a man whose ideas you didn't like but you knew his replacement, by his own words, was either stupid or a liar which one would you choose?

I think this is the most important aspect of this, such projects advance knowledge in a way that before space travel only war seemed to be able to do. Impossible to predict but my money is on more money eventually coming out of them than was put into to them via technological advances discovered along the way...

What!? You've never had sex with Scarlett Johansson? I am about tired of her, I think I'll go ahead and win the lotto this week, 365 million dollars... I think I'll just pay 15% in taxes on it too, I mean why not, all the other rich people do that... Are we living on different planets? Other than not smoking cigarettes, I couldn't afford a habit like that, that sounds more like my planet... 1/4 of my income goes to insurance, another 1/3 goes to rent, car payments? I hope not, If I did I couldn't put gas in the thing and eat regularly... Isn't having a dream wonderful...

What kind of paranormal activity is he experiencing exactly? That term does cover a lot of space...

When I posted this I honestly thought it was about a radio telescope, I read it at least once and then skimmed through it a couple of times later... I must be bad off, I completely missed it was an optical scope...

I doubt there is a wave length of UV that will show "drugs", the question is not specific enough... What drugs? What concentration?

The thing to do is go see another doctor...

A little bit of levity about libertarians...

Have you asserted anything that is supported by empirical evidence yet? Anything? Just because you can't show something to be impossible doesn't make it real. If that was true then UFOs are alien space craft, Reptilian aliens run the world, and fairy rings are portals into the world of the supernatural... You can't judge reality by what is impossible to prove doesn't exist is real...

A fairy ring has appeared in my lawn, no joke btw, is this evidence of the existence of fairies? I honestly do not understand your definition of evidence, you talk of things that obviously are somewhat less than well supported, like Edgar Casey, or Astrology as though they were evidence of something real? Where do you draw the line in supernatural beliefs? Do you draw a line? How are these things related to the OT? Actually in the back yard there is a fairy arc as well that is shaped like a spiral, almost perfect Fibonacci spiral, very cool, i am almost afraid to walk the spiral... I'll see if I can get some pictures of it too.

Another great coffee with Clair... The dim bulb of the week is one of the most disgustingly dishonest religious nuts i have seen in along time...

Abortion clinics in the 1960's? Roe VS Wade wasn't passed until 1973, before then any abortion would have been highly illegal, i question the veracity of your image. Yes it does, it reminds me of the Religious rights assertion that homosexuals be confined to concentration camps, let's see when was that... oh yes 2012... According to who? The same lying bastards who call Planned parenthood a pro abortion movement? The same people who are opposed to any birth control other than abstinence? The same people who would round up anyone they don't like and "concentrate them"? True, all you need is a bible and hatred... No it is not, The religious right seems to share this attitude as well, and dishonest tactics and propaganda are something else they have in common... It answers many questions about you... about you...

timMAY! timMAY! timMAY! Hitler timMAY! timMAY! vegetarian timMAY! timMAY! timMAY! timMAY! kind to small animals timMAY! timMAY! Hitler timMAY! Proabortion movement timMAY! timMAY! Hitler 6 million timMAY! proabortion 52 million timMAY! timMAY! timMAY! abstinence only timMAY! no birth control timMAY! timMAY! planed parenthood = 52 million dead timMAY! timMAY! timMAY! psychopath fight psychopath fight timMAY! Anders Hovland timmay!? See South Park for interpretation...

You would have to have an volt meter to be sure but the safest thing is to cover it back up and ask a professional. Don't you guys use 240 over there? If it's an old power tap of some sort it could be dangerous...

If you are in the USA I would speculate that it's an old style telephone connection.... is it live?

Was it my imagination or did some of the pictures show a mist hanging low in places on the ground?

How is non belief in something a faith?

I'd want to tax him the same way everyone else is taxed, why is that not fair? BTW, I've never had capital gains tax, I never made any money other than wages, why should capital gains be taxed any different than wages?

While I agree that War, if fought at all, should be fought to be won I have to agree with Iota on this, fighting a religion, especially when the people in charge pretty much insure that everyone involved has no point of view but their point of view is probably a fools errand. Ideas are hard to kill and these people have been culturally isolated for so long we have very little in common, what we call freedom has a completely different meaning to them and until they want change from within i think our efforts there are always going to be a holding action. Education, trust, and understanding will probably win far more than MOABs but attaining it will be difficult, as IOTA stated we are fighting ourselves from hundreds of years ago, the harder we try to win the more effort they will put into us not winning, i can't see continuing this war on the basis of killing every one we disagree with... Religion is a powerful force, it took us a long time to come to grips with the idea of freedom of religion, until quite recently freedom of religion pretty much meant freedom to obey my religion for us as well, i can't see us changing this over night any more than it changed for us over night...

Computer simulations of what happens to Earth like planets when they are subjected to great heat, similar to the super earths orbiting near their home stars is allowing scientists to gain insight into how these planets form and how Earth and Venus became so different. http://www.gizmag.com/super-earth-destroyed-simulation/23628/?utm_source

A contest backed by google to place a telescope on the moon is moving closer to fruition... http://www.gizmag.com/iloa-lunar-telescope/23639/?utm_source

Elshamah (where did you get that user name dude? ) how do i tell you this, I assume you are a smart guy, in some ways smarter than me, i don't even have a web site of my own, you got me beat on that for sure. But this is not a contest in intelligence it's about evidence, you seem to think in absolutes here, if naturalism cannot answer everything it must be false, this is really a mistake on your part. In a moment I'll attempt to show you why. but first let me say this. I support your right to believe in a god, i support your right to believe it only on faith. As long as your belief in god harms no one I say hold on to it if it makes you feel better. I'll argue right there beside you supporting your right to believe, your right to faith in a supernatural higher order of reality. If you live in the USA you have that right for sure and I do support your right to that. I know a great many theists who are good decent people, in fact i would say most are probably by a wide margin, some are annoying as hell but so am I, love to annoy people, in my old age it's the only sport i have left. Where the problem lies is your need to assert your belief as fact, you have every right to your own beliefs, Jesus as portrayed in the new Testament was an amazing man, i won't equivocate and say for his time, he was amazing any way you look at it. He asserted things that brought about tremendous changes in society not the lest of which is the theme of non violence that can be taken from the words ascribed to him, of course a great many people have twisted and used these words to support all sorts of violence and other crimes but that is the nature of humans to take the mantle of authority from others and use it for their own means. To deny this would be stupid. The idea that god is the ultimate moral authority fails on many levels totally independent of things like evolution, the big bang, dark matter, star formation, none of these things, even if we had no understanding of them what so ever they have any bearing on the problem of moral authority. Yes, subjective morals are a consensus of what most people feel is right, to me it's quite easy to show that morals can be based on the logic of doing no harm to others and treating others the way you want to be treated. Respect and empathy are the main tools i use to see how i should treat others... could this idea be used to commit crimes? Of course it could, virtually any system can be perverted to serve the one instead of the many. The place where the idea of objective morality fails is that first of all who is the giver? Which moral code do we go by? There are so many different ideas on this it would be difficult to adequately describe them all and they all come from a god or some god like power. Now if we go with your idea of who God is it's quite easy to show conflicting morals all throughout the Holy book being used as a source of this objective morality. It's also fairly easy to show that these morals are ignored by followers of this god pretty much everywhere they appear to insist we follow this moral code. My conclusion is that this objective moral code handed down by god is no better than any other moral code as far as getting people to follow them. Do you really think homosexuals should be killed? Do disrespectful children need to be killed? Should a girl who is not a virgin on her wedding night be killed? Come on, you know you don't believe that and anyone who tried to follow those objective morals will spend some time thinking about it in jail in our society. A moral code that can change if necessary and that protects the rights of individuals as much as possible is superior, it's what we currently use by the way, and i think that's a good thing because if we settle on one written in stone set of rules what happens if your little corner of religion is not considered a part of this? it happened frequently not all that long ago, various denominations of Protestant Christianity have been demonized by other denominations and persecution due to differences in religion were quite common and deadly. Then of course you have the differences between the Catholics and Protestants, not a pretty history for religion... My point of course is that the idea of objective morality based in religion can be used to justify anything, no moral code is immune to this. I will assert that we as a society are morally superior to earlier societies that were based on the word of some god, this is probably not an absolute truth but I haven't seen any Jews boiled in oil for eating meat on Friday in my life time. No witches burned at the stake lately even in my neck of the woods where fundamentalists quite literally rule. Although there have been some disturbing demands to put gay people in concentration camps based on the morals of your god. Now i ask you, would you rather live in a society that allows you to hold your beliefs, in fact gives you the right to do so, or would you rather live in a society that takes rights away from anyone who disagrees with the rules given in your bible? Will you be the first person to step up and kill a homosexual? Are you willing to kill based on the demands of your god? if your neighbor cuts his grass on Sunday are you going to get your shotgun out and kill him as he mows his grass? Are you really willing to enforce such rules of behavior? if not you are closer to being in my camp than you think... Believe what you want, profess your beliefs, you have a right to them but you do not have a right to your own facts...

Why do you keep asking this? iNow answered it for you several posts ago, why do you keep asking it? This is misleading and dishonest not to mention almost 60 years out of date... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils More misleading tripe from your own website? How about some real science? http://www.space.com/450-planets-form-mess.html http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form Charlie Wagner? really? Talk about blatant dishonesty, he is not a scientist, just a science denier, his babbling is no better than any other science denier, all he does is deny, he doesn't provide any evidence for anything. You are quoting William Lane Craig? You have just lost all possible credibility, he is nothing but a christian apologist, a much debunked Christian apologist, his musings on this subject are horse feathers... Show evidence of that please Again, no one is saying that, all that is being said is that at this time we do not know where everything came from. Good idea And you have been shown several times why this is not true, fine tuning is bunk, if things were different they would be different, nothing else can be said about the fine tuning no information in DNA, as for morally perfect... I pointed out how morally bankrupt your myth of god is way back in this thread. No it is not, you would still be left with no evidence what so ever other than your faith... but more importantly naturalism comes up with new answers all the time, once lightning was thought to be god's wrath now we can divert it away from us, is god that weak? The logical step is to continue to seek answers not stop and say god did it, if we had done that 200 years ago common diseases would still be killing people diseases that are easily cured now, god did it is not an answer to anything... lets see, 4 of them have nothing to do with morals, one is just about impossible for humans, one is iffy but I'll give it to you since defying it could cause harm to another and the other 4 are self evident. Now i ask you, god demand humans break these rules quite a bit in the bible, he breaks them as well, how are they relevant to the commands to kill I showed you earlier in this thread? Again go to post #7 in this thread, watch it, try to understand why Hitler was wrong via these ideas. If you cannot then maybe you really do need the threat of eternal damnation to keep you in line... which standard in the bible is the binding one? You don't understand what evidence is and why it is important do you? Ok, on this you come pretty close to having a point, if i were to assert i knew there was no god i should have to support that assertion with evidence but naturalism proves it's self, it works, but know one here is saying that naturalism proves there is no god, this is your own strawman... yet another link to your web site where you give misleading and distorted views as evidence? Naturalism works, take away the fruits of naturalism and most of the people on the earth would die with in weeks months for sure, naturalism works, no way around it, with out scientific naturalism we could not be having this conversation, most of us would not even be alive... You really didn't watch the video in post #7 did you? More dishonesty Elshamah, you have been shown the answers to your questions over and over, you present no new evidence to back up your assertions just the same high pitched whine about how unfair it is....

I to have often wondered how he came to power and how he convinced so many to follow such a dark course. To be honest i think some of it was simply the perfect storm type scenario. A cult of personality built around someone who was severely flawed who was able to attract a great many others who were similarly flawed. From my perspective it's difficult to imagine anyone thinking such things but we have leaders today that advocate horrific things but they don't seem to attract the numbers of people today that such people attracted back then. We don't quite jump to the beat of authority like many people did then and fewer of us are willing to allow others to tell us what to think and do, not that such people don't exist now they just don't seem to as many of them nor is blind obedience thought to be as virtuous as it was then either... Personally I think the movement toward reason and rational thought have greatly crippled the people who would do such things.