Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Blue, ok, *maybe* save two...
Interesting though. Tell me, when are you in favor of the death penalty?
ILA
WLD, I'm still waiting.
ILA
ljk,
boy that was some fancy footwork.
ILA
WOW, with this board consisting of nothing but,
liberals, save one, I would have thought you all would be in agreement concerning guns.
I am finding this debate fascinating.
ILA
WLD
Still waiting for one from you concerning evolution. What's the matter, all googled out?
ILA
OT: ljk,
"I haven't seen any evidence for ID in your posts: just evidence that a kid re-dressed her dolls."
Didn’t see any evidence for ID? You just demonstrated ID. You looked at the evidence of the science (not religion), and concluded that it all pointed to the fact that something with intelligence (the daughter) had to re-dressed the doll. Now, did you make that conclusion based on religion? No! You looked at the evidence of the science. You just stated all you saw was “evidence” that a kid (something with intelligence) “re-dressed her dolls”, and the only evidence that was presented was scientific, not religious. Now, are you, by stating the fact that the evidence pointed to something with intelligence (the daughter), teaching religion? I would say no. I didn’t see you introduce religion in your conclusion in any way, shape, or form. That is ID. Looking at the scientific evidence, and drawing the proper conclusions. Just because the conclusions point to something with intelligence, isn’t teaching religion.
You see, if you would have had an agenda to reject that the daughter (something with intelligence) intervened, you would have purposely ignored what the science was telling you, and started trying your best to argue points, which are just plan contradictory to the science, that the clothes merely evolved all by themselves on the doll. You would have insisted, at all cost, to the idea that something with intelligence intervened and put the clothes on the doll, because that would have exposed your agenda. That’s evolution. Acceptance of a theory merely because one doesn’t like the outcome of what the science demands.
It all comes down to this. People who reject ID only reject it for one reason. They are scared of the fact that all of science points to something with intelligence, and this they just will not allow, because their religious view (humanism), will be demonstrated to be false. They are running scared. You see in the academic world, this war started a long time ago. The academics are already looking for a way out. They know evolution is false, because all of science contradicts it, which is why they are busy trying to come up with an alternative, and one that doesn’t contain an external “intelligence” of couse, You are merely seeing it finally starting to spill over out into society. You see, they can only suppress the truth of what science says so long. The truth bleeds out here and there, and people without the “at all cost” agenda see it and then act on it.
ILA
P.S. "This board always gets involved in posts about religion or politics, so you surely can't complain if I post on the subject once every very very long time"
I wasn't complaining. I was merely informing you that we already had a big long discussion. I didn't want you to feel that I was ignoring you by not engaging in another debate on the subject. Sorry if you felt attacked. That was not the intent.
OT: ljk, we stopped this discussion days ago...
so I will merely direct you to this post of mine. The bottom pretty much sums up the relationship between ID and the Bible, or any religion for that matter, of course you have to read the entire post to understading the summation statement at the bottom. Give it a read.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8452858
Your post here, as usual, from people who know nothing about ID, made all the same assumptions and statements trying your best to attach ID to religion (Christianity) merely so you can use what you think is your trump card ie. separation of Church and state. That way you can avoid have your bias exposed.
ILA
OT:dilleet,
I am not sure how that is possible. The Constitution is clear. The only way a law such as that could exist is for Congress to make an amendment to the Constitution. People voting on something doesn't change the Constitution. Maybe I'm missing something here.
ILA
WLD,
the theory is merely the opposite theroy of evolution. The theroy is the complexity of the universe is such that something with intellegence must have created it.
The evolutionist theory is: Since we reject the existance of God, (outcome already made up), everything must be eternal in and of itself and evolved over time, thus no matter what science points to, we reject it and will only interpret any evidence to support evolution.
So, now both schools use the same science, and peform the same experiments and looks at the evidence and results to see where it points, such as the fossil records, which sure doesn't support evolution. The difference between the two schools is evolution has been at it now for what over 100 years, and yet everything still contradicts it. Time to admit it isn't true, which in the academic world is already being forced to admit. You are merely seeing it finally come to head outside the academic world. You see what people like you are really against and scared of is having your beliefs (athestic, thus religious in nature) challeged. You're all for religion as long as it is atheism. You are scared of the truth about what science reveals and are merely using religion as your front to hide behind.
ILA
roni,
I'm sorry. You were the one who replied to my post that was deleted, thus I assumed you were the one who delete it.
ILA
You're all, as usual, trying to credit something about ID that isn't true. You like those strawmen Like I tried to demonstrate in my post that was deleted (censorship) by roni.
But here it is again. We'll see if he deletes it again claiming off topic, yet allows all your post to remain.
"ID is pure science. It's the one that never leaves the arena of science, unlike creationism.
ID is every bit as scientific as evolution. I take that back. ID actually looks at things through science and then lets the results of that science speak for itself. So, when basic chemistry says it's impossible for any given "thing" to happen by itself no matter how much time you give it, you have to conclude that "something" else must have intervened to make it happen. What that "something" else is, whether it be a God or another man from another dimension doesn't concern ID. It merely shows through science that it's impossible for “whatever” to happen all by itself through random change. The science points to something that can think and create organization had to intervene.
Do you have kids? Let's say you are home all alone with your child. You just finished cleaning that child’s room. You then go to your own room to clean it. You are gone for 15 minutes. After 15 minutes you return to your child's room. Now suddenly things are not where you placed them. You find things moved around but not just moved around into a mess, but you find things moved around in such a manner that they demonstrate something with intelligence was in the room. You find Barbie dolls (in this example you have a daughter) with their clothes changed and they match. You find that Barbie sitting at a play table with Ken having tea. You find your daughters favorite Disney movie in the VCR player. Now, common sense tells you that stuff didn't just randomly get to their new locations (forget the fact that something had to cause the movement to happen), as random movement wouldn't care if the clothes matched or not. Heck random movement wouldn’t know the clothes even went to the Barbie doll. Forget that common sense tells you all that (which is what the evolutionist does), you decided to figure out what happened. So you look for evidence. You think for a moment and remember the only people home are you and your daughter (Fact 1 observation). You then notice in the next room your daughter is sitting there playing with a Barbie doll, and that Barbie doll just happens to be wearing the clothes the Barbie doll, that’s still back in your daughter's room, was wearing when you put her away when you cleaned the room.
Now, all the evidence says your daughter was in the room. Common sense already told you that she was, but you decide to use science to investigate. So you calculate using Math the odds of any of that stuff happening all by itself through random chance, and the number is so high it's impossible (Fact 2). You also use physics to demonstrate that motion without a cause is impossible, thus you conclude something must have come into the room after you left and caused movement (Fact 3). You then also use a law of thermodynamics to show that objects don't progress into higher orders of organization. Instead the natural law says Barbie's clothes should have merely fallen off the table onto the flood instead of organizing themselves into a higher order of organization by landing in a complex fashion on the Barbie doll itself, which was across the room, and then to boot, the clothes are yet even in a higher order by matching through color (Fact 4).
Now, do you ignore the fact of all the science you just performed merely because you refuse to admit your daughter must have been in that room? Or, do you conclude through what the science is pointing to, whether or not it was your daughter, because you still can prove beyond all doubt it was her. The science merely points to something with intelligence. That is ID. ID looks at the scientific evidence and what it points to, whether we like what it points to or not, and it doesn’t define whether it was a God, many gods, or a blue man from another dimension. It merely acknowledges what science points to. Not so with the evolutionist. He bases his entire conclusion upon blind faith.
The evolutionist can't explain why or how something can be, so he merely says, "it happened over time (his catch all solution to anything he can't explain) and it happened all by itself. Now, I know I can't prove that using any scientific means, in fact I know science (Math, Chemistry, Physics) seems to contradict that whole idea, but since I automatically choose to reject that something with intelligence did it, that must be the reason, therefore, I opt for that explanation, thus I rest my case.”
Like I said, blind faith.
By the way, why is it that if evolution is true and all living things evolved over time, and it happened over billions of years, which would create *only* transitional forms in the fossil record, we can't seem to every find any transitional forms? Yea, I know every so often they try to claim they *finally* found *one* and the news goes crazy. The problem is afterwards all the scientists out there get to look at it and then show it to be false, they merely jumped the gun in their zeal, but of course the media never gets that back on the front page of the paper so people like you continue on through life thinking then finally found one. Forget that, my point is this. If evolution is true, then transitional forms would be the only kind of fossils one could find. Yet, will all the millions and millions of fossils we have found, none of them show transition. Which is why when they finally do find something, in their zeal, they broadcast it from the mountain tops. If evolution were true the non transitional forms would be the rarity not the transitional ones. It is all backwards. Hey, yet another branch of science that points away from evolution and to something else. We also just performed more Intelligent Design research without teaching anything concerning religion. The Bible wasn’t mentioned nor taught in any way shape or form. Heck for that matter, religion itself wasn’t even mentioned or taught. So, again, why can’t ID be taught in schools?"
ILA
roni, are you going to delete all messages or only the ones that go against your biased opinion?
Well, seeing how it seems to be only mine, I guess censorship is still going strong not only in the scientific community, but here too.
I thought you liberals were against censorship and all that neo-con activities.
I was also wondering where you were when the post concerning Pat Robertson was posted by gonzago, ccriderless. Oh, what I forgot. You love to bash Christianity too, so if that is the topic then it stays, but as soon as somebody defends it, such as if I were to have started to defend Pat, then suddenly the censorship starts. You just demonstrated that concerning ID. As long as the evolutionist were posting about it, things were fine, but now that I started to defend it, the censorship started.
ILA
WLD,
I am not doing that as all. I was merely allowing you to define what science was. You try to state it's only science if it can be repeat in a lab. So, I merely said ok, then evolution has to be held to the same level. So, I asked for a repeatable test that proved evolution.
ID looks at science and science tells you evolution is impossible. For examople, basic Chemistry denys evolution?
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=105
Concerning science having to be something you can repeat. Tell me, can you prove through science that George Washington was the first President of the US? Can you repeat that in a lab? I'll let you think about that.
ILA
WLD, hog wash. Show me one test that has be repeated that shows anything evolving.
ILA
OT: No Jim,
Evolution is the one that repudiates science. It ignores what science tells us, and it redefines many areas of science so it can have something to support its self-serving conclusions.
ILA
Tex, I would highly recommend the Canon Rebel XT.
I have the same frustrations as you. I am so tired of my camera finally taking the picture after what I was trying to photo had long since moved and become history ie. my daughter doing something really funny. And the kicker is, when I am finally able to actually take a picture of what I wanted the stupid photo is usually out of focus.
Of course if you have the money the Canon 20D is the ticket. My brother has one of these and every time I use it I get in a state of complete joy. The 20D will pop off shots at a rate of 5 shots per second...and in focus. A couple of weeks ago at my daughter's birthday party I was able to get all the shots I wanted…didn't miss a thing. Personally I will be picking up a 20D for myself very soon. I was going to get the Rebel XT. It pretty much, from our non-professional perspective, does everything the 20D does. The only real difference is it only takes 3 shots per second. At first I figured that would do, but then I got to thinking about my daughter playing soccer, doing her gymnastics, and her ballet. I figured I had better play it safe and just go with the faster rate. Plus, after getting to use my brother's, I am simply in love with it.
ILA
"WASHINGTON — The chiefs of five major oil companies defended the industry's huge profits Wednesday at a Senate hearing where lawmakers said they should explain prices and assure people they're not being gouged."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175023,00.html
I say put them all in jail!
ILA
BlueDjinn, you the man..thanks.
ILA
Sorry, was commenting on tomm's post of him being the cause of switching 5 people over to the Mac.
My post should have said, "I switched two Windows users to the Mac in 2005."
ILA
What does one have to do to create an MP3 file on OS X?
I just don't understand how it's possible that I can pay $30 for QuickTime Pro and I can't save a simple sound file as an MP3. Seems Apple let's me save files in every freakin' format except MP3. The only way I can figure out to save a file as a MP3 is to set iTunes to import files as MP3, and then drag the file out of iTunes onto my desktop. How kind of crap is that?
Anybody have an easy way to create a MP3 file?
ILA
I switched two Window using to Mac in 2005
"Apple is on its way to the moon, Microsoft is making some desparate moves, suffering severe googlphobia"
That is a beautiful thing after all!
ILA
OT: Blue,
You shouldn’t have given your opinion until you heard mine, but none the less, here is mine.
First, from your other post. Yes, we can agree you think life only exist after delivery, although I highly doubt that in the back of your mind you believe that dogmatically 100%. I on the other hand am not 100% sure. I am 99% sure life exist at conception, but not 100%. But, here is the problem. You don’t kill something you aren’t sure about. If I am out hunting and I see a bush moving but I am not sure whether it’s a deer or some other hunter, I am not gong to shot and then go see. Life should always be given the benefit of the doubt. Until we are 100% sure, life should be protected. Now, I realize we probably will never know 100% one way or the other, but that is not the point. You don’t kill now and then go see, and you also don’t make a decision just because you may never know something one way or the other. What if science reveals to us 20 or 100 years from now, life was there? Think how many babies you just murdered in cold blood, and it is in cold blood. 99.9% of abortions are because the women just doesn’t want to have to raise a baby because it will interferer with her life’s plans or current situation (put a hamper on the fun she is having in life). Have you ever read about the various processes used to kill the unborn babies? How the babies react to the pain of being ripped apart? How during partial birth abortion the baby, who has been delivered up to the point where the body is out of the birth canal but the head is still in, reaches back and grabs the finger or thumb (like all babies do) of the doctor with its hand before the doctor rams the scissors into the back of the head at the base of the skull killing it. Then sticking a suction hose into the head to suck the brain out to collapse the head to make removal easier? Maybe you should. There are many post-abortion doctors, whose conscience has finaly caught up to them, who have many stories to tell.
Now, to your post.
"IF you TRULY believe that a fetus is indeed a living human being from the moment of conception, then the circumstances of the conception itself are irrelevent--it's either a human being or it isn't."
You are correct.
IF this is the case, then in cases of rape, your position should simply be, "sorry lady, get over it."
Of course your statement of the position was purposely put in a light that sounds crass, which was intended to make the position of not having an abortion sound bad. Concerning the matter though, yes, the women should still have the baby. Why should that human being have to be murdered because of a criminal act by somebody else? Why does the innocent have to be the one to receive the punishment for a crime commented by somebody else? If the woman doesn’t want the baby, there are thousands of couples out there who will adopt the baby. My wife and I for example. We have adopted two children not wanted by two selfish women who just wanted to do drugs and party it up without thinking through the *choices* they were making (notice they got to make their choice). Now these two beautiful little girls, ages 6 and 2, have beautiful lives where all their physical, emotional, educational, and spiritual needs are provided for.
"IF this is the case, then in cases of danger to the mother, your position should simply be, "take your chances, if one of you dies in the process, those are just the breaks."<.i>
Again, you purposely put the position in a light that obviously sounds very crass and hateful; something your side always needs to do to get support. But, again, concerning the matter, I will state this. The reality of the position of the mother being in danger is nowhere near as the pro-choice tries to portray it. 99% of the time the point of the pregnancy being a danger to the women is at birth. Doctors have 20 million different ways to deal with any given situation at birth, such as delivering the baby through an emergency c-section to completely avoid the danger of the birth process to the mother. Very rarely will there be a situation that is actually threatening to the life of the mother, and when it is it doesn’t show its ugly head until the mother is in the *process* of giving birth. So, in that situation, a choice has to be made. If it comes down to delivering the baby and the mother dies, or the baby dies and the mother lives, obviously the mother and father have to make that decision. If somebody is going to die, then there is no choice in the matter. The mother can choose to give up her life for her child, or choose to take whatever action is required to save her life. To say in that situation even the abortion of the child can't be done is merely performing an abortion on the mother. Either way you are aborting a life. That sitution only leave rooms for one choice. That is like asking a father whose son is about to get hit by a car and he has the time to either jump in the way, killing him but saving his son, or let the car hit his son. One way or the other somebody is going to die. The father is obviously the one who has to make that decision. But, again, this situation just doesn’t happen the way the hypothetical dream created up the lovers of death have presented it.
"IF this is the case, then in cases of extreme deformity/etc, your position should be...well, whatever your position is in other related cases (ie, whatever your take is on living wills/assisted suicide/etc might be)."
Of course the baby should be allowed to live. There are people who will take the baby and raise it with love and take care of it. If the baby has to live out his/her life deformed, that life is only 70 or 80 years. That is not very long compared to eternity. You see that is the difference. People who want to kill and are in love with death think this little ol' 70 or 80 years here is it (and it probably is for them). If one is on the other side of eternity dwelling in the presence of God and looking back and they compare what they have then to what they had to deal with in this life, he/she would be willing to endure 10,000 years of deformity.
Now concerning living wills, and assisted suicide, they are completely different. You tried to lump them all into a nice package with rape, and deformity, which all are being dealt with through abortion, but you can't do that. Those are not abortion (they aren't even children) and are completely different animals, so we’ll leave that for another day.
ILA
pdq, the right hand.
ILA
Blue,
Considering you just want to attribute by post as "diatribe", I don't think you really care. I think you merely wanted another excuse to insult, but you needed something to respond to. So, you responded to that post, in which, you did in fact processed to insult. Of course it was covered up by asking some questions concerning my position on certain aspects of abortion.
ILA
roni, agreed:) em
ILA
dilleet, you mean like you just tried to do?
ILA
Blue,
I would not be comfortable with it either. Whether it's GOP or Dems. What I am comfortable with is this. Majority control by men of high integrity, morality, ethics, and understanding of America, based upon the Founding Fathers’ vision and understanding of what this nation was founded upon. The only problem is, only about 30% of the GOP meets that criteria, and -30% of the Dems meet it.
ILA
OT: Roni
Yet, you know enough about me to make the assertions you did concerning me?
Yet, you know enough about any of the individuals in the "Christian Right" (whomever that may be to you) to make the judgments you did concerning them?
I'm not even going to touch your hypocrisy, but man it's deep.
ILA
"We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."
The USA wan't wrong for engaging in Vietnam. They merely handled the engagement wrong. They should have cut loose the military and allowed them to do their job instead of tying one hand behind their backs.
You see the same thing going on in Iraq now. The military shouldn't be trying to police a bunch of killers. They should be cut free and allowed to deal with them. Sitting back and waiting for the bad guy to pick you off one by one is retarded. Yet, another issue I have with Bush. Cut the Marines loose and end this stupid situation.
ILA
"But of course King Dubbya could pardon them."
But, of course it was OK for old Bill to do the same thing. Don't remember it being a problem for any Dems then.
ILA
Roni, amazing how one can support on action by somebody and suddenly they are credited with supporting that person 100% in everything that said person says and does.
I may support Bush in the war, but believe me, when it comes to many other things, he is a complete failure. Our borders are being over run. He is spending like a mad man. Just a couple of examples.
I am not even going to waste my time with your twisting and ignorance concering the Christian right, nor Christianity for that matter, as you havn't a clue to what your even try to talking about. You're merely trying to latch onto something you think is an opportunity to bash that will cause insult to me so you opened said ignorant mouth. Won't work. I just laugh at your stupidity concerning the topic.
Concerning me expecting "higher ethical and public morality standards from our elected officials." I do! That is why Bush was the lesser of two evils when it was time to vote, both times. I would rather have had the opportunity to vote for Mr. Peroutka ( http://www.constitutionparty.com ).
ILA
Blue, funny how you only feel that way when it's the GOP in control, but didn't feel that way when it was the Dems in control.
You're a hyprocrite through and through, so give it a rest.
ILA
sinclap,
quit with your twisting of common sense. How would the pro-choice supporter loose her reproductive rights? She can still choose to get pregnant anytime she wants and thus, choosing to have a child. And she can still choose not to get pregnant any time she wants and thus, choose not to have a child. It truly amazes me how one can justify murder. We’re talking *murdering* a human being to get out of a situation she *chose* to create. And, the kicker is the inconvenience the women brought upon herself was by her *choice* in the first place. She made the *choice* to engage in an activity that produces a child. She made the *choice* not to take the counter-measures to keep the pregnancy from happening. She made the *choice* the entire way, so spear me this whole *choice* crap, and spear me this whole loosing her rights crap. She hasn’t lost any right to choose to reproduce. It is all still completely in her control. Why not go ahead and give the women the right to kill the baby after it’s born (which some pro-choice advocates are already starting to ask for). Say a week later, after birth, the woman’s husband dies and she thinks she just can’t raise a child by herself. Shouldn’t she have the right to choose to kill the baby then? Why shouldn’t she have the *right* afterwards? Nothings changed except a week in time and there is no husband around, which shouldn’t be a problem for you. After all, according to Mrs. Clinton, a single women is every bit a family as a couple is, right? Thus, a single women is every bit as capable as a *traditional* family is right?
Concerning coat hangers let them use them. If the woman damages herself than that is what she gets for murdering, or attempting to murder, an innocent human being. Remember murder is bad, which is why it’s illegal all around the world since time began, and we put people in jail for it.
Michael Savage nailed it on the head when he stated that liberalism is a mental disorder. It renders one completely void of thinking with a thread of morality, logic, and the ability to discern right from wrong. We truly live in some twisted times. I can kick and cause an unborn baby in a women’s womb to die and go to jail for 20 years for *murder*, yet the women can kill the same human being and get praised for sticking up for her *rights*, like she has the right to decide live or death for another innocent human being.
ILA
WinLoseOrDraw, hear hear!!!...
Just a bunch children *still* crying because they lost the election.
ILA
If one thinks the war on Terror ends in Iraq...
he better think again.
"Iranians Rally Against Israel, U.S.
TEHRAN, Iran — Tens of thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel demonstrations across the country Friday, repeating calls by their ultraconservative president for the destruction of the Jewish state..."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173784,00.html
It's all going to come head to head again in Iran.
ILA
Apple has posted an update for Backup to fix that very issue.
ILA
yeah yeah yeah, save your rhetoric for somebody who's stupid enough to fall for it.
ILA
Wonder how the unedited version presents things? Probably far different than the CNN edited version.
ILA
WOW, check out the tutorial movies for Aperture at the Apple website.
Amazing software.
http://www.apple.com/aperture/quicktours/
ILA