in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.
only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.
people deserve respect, errors do not..
I don't see how you can compare the shape of the earth to the origin of species. The shape of the earth is easily observable. The origin of species can only be known through circumstantial evidence.
Yes I think evolution is good and useful science. However I have a hard time calling it a "fact".
so i went to dmv this morning.... can someone explain how this does not violate the separation of church and state?.
.
exploring the human genome is like roaming around an historic town.
some places are pristine and obviously still in everyday use.
others have been unused for a while and starting to show signs of decay and if you look carefully there are relics of buildings that were abandoned long ago.. in this post we are going to look at a gene that we still carry in every cell in our body but which fell into disuse 10s of millions of years ago.. humans are placental mammals.
Hi Cofty this is very interesting science indeed. I do learn from your post.
That being said.... I don't like the statement "Evolution is a Fact" No one can prove that statement. Now Evolution might be the best way to explain all the science and observations that biologist make. It also seems to work in a "predictive" sense. So it is very useful.
Maybe a statement such as "Evolution is good strong science with lost of supporting evidence" would be much more accurate.
Scientists should be curious and open minded. Everything should be questioned.
just imagine the panic.disbelief.oh my god they were right.then you pee in your pants.what will l do?the plea for forgiveness.please let me through.l promise l''ll change.l didn;t mean what l said on that jw.com site.l was jokin.then you wake up it was only a dream.disbelief turns to relief.
but it could happen..
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
The point being that when you avail the purchase or ownership of semiautomatics to the general public, you are essentially making the devastation greater for a potential massacre event.
I don't think this is correct at all. First of all if I was gong to do a mass shooting... I would use a shot gun not a semiautomatic rifle/handgun. Also the worst mass murders of all time had nothing to do with guns. Stuff like fertilizer, box cutters, or even gasoline and a match have proven to be MUCH more effective than firearms.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
I just noticed your reference to Oregon.... okay fair enough. However this movement didn't have the support of the local population, and just had few people involved in it at all.
How quickly you forget about a very similar situation from Nevada a while back. You might feel that the Bundy's where wrong and the government was right, that is fine I don't want to argue that point. However in this situation they had the local populations support, sheriff support, and LOTS of armed men. In this situation the government DID back down. The people got to defend what they thought was their right, and everybody went home safe and sound.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
You notice in the amendment it links "militia" and the right of the people to bare arms. In no way do I believe that the founders of the constitution meant the right only to extend to side arms. Weapons of war where meant to be included. Private ownership of large weapons of war was not that uncommon at least until civil war era. Your question becomes nonsensical when you talk about modern weapon systems simply due to the costs involved. Even Bill Gates probably couldn't afford to buy and operate an aircraft carrier.
I have a counter question for you.... Can you point to any part of the constitution that would grant the government the power to limit the peoples right in this regard?
does anyone have a meaningful response to the following question/points: the fruitage of the spirit found at gal.
5:22: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, mildness, kindness.
goodness, faith and self-control, in many way for many people can be increased through the use of anti-anxiety, anti-depressants, and a host of other pharma's.
san bernardino california.
up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.
disabilities.
There are two facts at play here...
First it seems as though so much of the craziness on the world stage is coming from Muslims.
And secondly we all know most Muslims are not terrorists. They just want to live a peaceful life with a different culture and religion than our own.
I will be honest here... It is very difficult to reconcile those two thoughts in my head. It is hard not to be biased against the whole religion. How do we tell the two groups apart?
san bernardino california.
up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.
disabilities.
sloppyjoe... the point is that guy had a choice. He did what he felt was best for himself at the time. It also helps to confirm that most concealed carry holders are very responsible and don't just go off half caulked. Apparently no one else there had a choice. Their only option was to hide and hope for the best.
If you had to go through the same ordeal... would you honestly prefer NOT to be armed?
