PLD

Didn't meant to imply that you did. But many feel precisely that way. And anyone or anything that challenges the word is a tool of satan. It's not as simple as fossils or dinosaurs or xyz. It is a conglomeration of volumes of evidence which I have good reason to believe is accurate based on personal experience. And while I cannot specifically say the evolutionary sequence of events was exactly ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, I can certainly say that I can observe the pieces ???DE??HIJK??PQ??TUV?XYZ. I can also know that the last few dozen blanks we have filled in have certainly followed and alluded to a particular suspected sequence. Is is possible that the planet was wiped out and replaced by Adam and Eve in the missing period during UV_XYZ? Of course. I do. On both counts. I do not. Nor I do not believe that one must accept the bible as entirely truth, or dismiss it as entirely unreliable.

In fact, they do survive. As recessive gene mutations that occur infrequently. Google the following: hypertrichosis ectrodactyly

Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing against the existence of God, the divinity of jesus Christ, or even the virtues of leading a faithful life. In fact, I've intentionally avoided bringing my own views into this dicussion to avoid having them color the debate. But I will say that many people who have already formed opinions about my religous view based on this thread would be quite be surprised to know the truth. I simply believe that what I have experienced in my life does not concur with Genesis ch 1 & 2, and that electing to disbelieve Gen 1 & 2 does not make one a Godless heathen.

Actually you have done so repeatedly and those assumptions are clearly evident in your writings: * Optimist or pessimist. * Eternal life or singular life. * two beliefs definitely oppose each other - they do not exist side by side. In your own words, it is a binary choice. Either I believe as you do (creationism), or I cannot have relationship with God. Since I have established that I am an evolutionist, you must therefore assume be to be Godless. Am I wrong? It may have been said here, but I do not believe I said any such thing. I said that man has had control over the content of bible via transcription, the cannon (inclusion/exclusion), etc and that makes them subject to error and review. I also said that even if not once page has changed, the mere translation and re-translation makes it subject to linguistic error. No, they haven't gotten twisted at all. As an academic exercise, the odds of flipping a coin 1,000,000x and getting all heads are 1:1,000k. But, in the real world if it has just occurred the odds of it occurring are 100%.A alternately, to a lottery player the odds of winning are 1:43,000,000. But to a lottery winner, the odds of winning are 100%. The odds of winning AGAIN are 1:43,000,000, but now they are 100%. And to a lottery winner who has bested the odds, the victory is often seen as divine providence, and not random chance. We as humans are the winners of the cosmic lottery... Your logic suffers from a flaw known as false dichotomy. Those being to assume that only two options exist, and since one can disprove A that subsequently proves B. You have completely ignored C, D, and E. Aside from that, chemical compounds do not just randomly bond like a bucket full of marbles and glue. By their very structure, they must attach at specific angles and locations. Hence, they fold into very specific shapes. Because of this, the compounds that make up these proteins are bound by other molecules that bond in a specific curvature (fold). Furthermore, assume that both are produced and apply natural selection. When biosynthesis began, the cells that incorporated LH proteins were more successful than those that adopted RH curves. Why? Who knows? Perhaps LH curves produce phenylalanine more readily than cartinine and because of the environment, the cell needed more phenylalanine. In either case, you cannot assume that because some things are not ubiquitous that it supports intelligent design. If that is the case, the mere existence of dry land supports the ID theory since man cannot live under water. Again, false dichotomy. How about God created and set into motion a system to create humans? Or God could care less about humans, but created a universe for his own amusement and humans resulted? Did it ever occur to you that God created the earth specifically for worms and roaches and we were placed here as nothing more than food for them? And that our intelligence was given to us only to enhance our ability to kill each other, thus ensuring a continuing food supply? There are a hundred different reasons why the belief in God and the belief in evolution are not diametrically opposed. It is only when you assume that man is the center of Gods world that it becomes a problem. I'm not sure where you got this from, but if you will do a little research on quantum mechanics you will find that not to be true at all. If you have a source, I'd like to see it. No. There is a theory concerning an energy vacuum (not an air vacuum) that has been produced on paper but not experimentally. At present, it is not even measurable even if it were reproducible. No, science is not always correct. It is an attempt to explain the observable world based on what we know at the present. As that knowledge changes, so does scientific theory. And true science is always open to external scrutiny and introspection. The fact that science has been wrong on other issues does not discredit it on this one. Nor, does it lend credence to your argument. To assume that wither is to commit a logical error know as fallacy of relevance. Example of fallacy of relevance: Your parents were wrong about silver solutions being good for you. Therefore, they must be wrong about drugs being bad for you. Hence, the drug dealer who tells you that crack is good for you must be right since his position opposes that of your parents. Logical fallacy: Inconsistency of version. I said something before that conflicts with what I say now so therefore what I say now must be false also. Furthermore, conservation of matter still holds true but only at a non-nuclear level. Hence, why it is taught in early high school, but not later education. Our information base has expanded. As it will again in 20 years. Why did I bring it up then? Because you referenced it with respect to 2nd law of thermodynamics which actually has nothing to do with conservation of matter. False dichotomy: Either the bible is 100% literal as published by Random House © 2006 or God is a liar. Where is option C? Logical fallacy: Failure to State. Even so, I will humor the last one. No, it does not present an evolutionary dilemma. Even the lowly cockroach continues to evolve. It develops better disease resistance, better resistance to pesticides, tolerance for ice ages, tolerance for global warning, etc. Those adaptations that serve to ensure its continued existence are propagated. Those that do not, die with weaker entities.

I skipped on this one last night because I was a bit sleepy. So, here we go: The non trivial: Bricks, sand, and connecting rods have no inherent properties that cause them to seek one another. Atoms do. In fact, all but a few are more stable in a molecular compound and hence more probable ot exist than not. If you don't believe it, just put some hydrogen and oxygen together and wait. Or add a spark and don't wait. Either way, they will form water without assistance. Now onto the less simple. It has been proven that an formative (reducing) atmosphere with simple methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water will spontaneously form amino acids when subject to nothing more than time, heat, and electricity. And by time, I am speaking of weeks not millenia. Obviously since amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteins, the idea of a naturally synthensized protein chain resulting from the recombination ofnaturally occuring amino acids is not that far fetched. It has also be proven that certain non-living chemical compositions will reproduce themselves automatically. Others will repeated absorb external compounds, decopose and use them to maintain their present state, and eject 'waste' materials. Both of these behaviors (self replication & metabolism) are fundamental to life, but yet are being exhibited by non-living matter. It is really that far fetched that over time amino acids, self replicating compounds, and metabolic processes merged to form single structure that better served the needs of the three independent processes? And that the structure that was formed was better equipped to survive as a result of the union, and hence became the predominant entity?

Evolution and God and not mutually exclusive. Evolution and accident are. But, I do find it interesting that in an intelligent debate on the subject, you insist on using negative terms to frame ideas that you disagree with. Evolution becomes "created by accident" and an evolutionist is a "pessimist". Similarly, creationism is "intelligent design" and a creationist is an "optimist". If I were to engage in similar discourse, I might use such adjectives as "silly", "fanciful", and "myth" or "legend". But I won't since I have more respect for both you and your opinions. Furthermore, I also find it quite interesting that you find the need to define my faith for me. On several ocassions you have stated or implied that I do not believe in God. Why do you presume that my belief in evolution makes me a Godless heathen? You know nothing about me, or my faith.

I not sure where you got that the odds of a RH molecule exceed that of a LH molecule. Certainly not anything that I have said. An honest statistician would have to. Because it happened. Whether or not those molecules came to together by divine providence, evolution, or random occurrence, the probability that it happened is 100%. Yes, the odds of a random occurence are astronomical. But, so are the odds of winning the lottery, getting struck by lighting, or getting killed by a stingray. But it happens. And for those to who it happens, it often seems like divine providence given the odds. Furthermore, evolution is not about random behavior. It's about millions of small deviations from a-z over extended periods of times. It's about the fact that only premutations that can live in the environment that exists survive, and others die. Hence, the next generation favors those who inherit positive traits, and disfavors those who do not. Your presumption is totally and completely flawed. You assume that one cannot believe in evolution and God simultaneously. That is not the case. I can, and I do. Google 'Pascals gambit'

A interesting intrepetation of conservation of energy that includes a nod to Einsteins thory of interchangeability of matter/energy. It was probably written for a high school physics class. However, the actual 1st law is written as ^U = Q - W. Notice no reference to matter (or mass)? Thus the quote properly re-written is: The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation or Energy) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. Which brings my back to my original point. Conservation of matter is a pre-nuclear age concept. It is still taught at the early high school level to explain basic chemistry UNTIL the student is prepared for conservation of energy and thermodynamics.

* MOVED FROM BUSINESS TOPICS * Mike knows that I'm a libertarian. And IIRC, he is as well. And the #1 tenet of libertarianism is private property rights. Hence, Mike understands that stealing in an anathema to a libertarian. Now, if I were a liberal I'd suggest that since your business is doing much better than mine it's only *fair* that you share your pics with me. After all, isn't that what the founding fathers meant by "promote the general welfare"? And if you refused, armed men will take your liberty (or your life) unless you decide to "volunteered" your property. Welcome to our present tax system. From each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs. And if you elect not to participate in our little game of Robin Hood, we will kill you. The Fair Tax must be passed!

Excellent source. I've never seen AS excerpted, but I guess that I have never tried that hard. One point I would make is that the journey and introspection that the characters make as they search for John Galt (culminating in d'Anconia's speech) is just as important as the object of their quest. Hence, despite it being an excellent synopsis of the idea behind the story, I would argue that one cannot merely read the cliff notes and firmly grasp the concepts.

I am a big fan of the ideas she tries to communicate in AS and TF. Granted, they are presented in a utopian framework, but they are still great ideals to base ones life on.

#1 - A pretty far fetched description of the 2nd law. The second law simply says that for our universe entropy increases. If you restrict it to a local area (which violates the law itself), then hot air ballons do not exist. Which, of course, we know they do. #2 - With an infiinite number of builders, an infinite number of piles, and an infinte amount of time? Yes. Given one builder, one pile, and one lifetime? No. #3 - What is the probability that a single group of chemicals would arrange themselves into a particular arrangement in a single try? nearly zero. The probability that trillions of groups, recombinding trillions of times, over billions of years could combine as indicated? 100%. And if it formed something else totally different (a RH molecule) that supported life, would those "people" be fascinated at the probability that they were formed? Yes.

Then you would also agree that there are many words in the hebrew language which have no appropriate equivalent in english? And that a similar problem exists for each pair of languages through which it was subsequently translated? Ignoring linguistic differences, what about the various canon and biblical texts that were not included in the "present "canon such as the gosples of st. thomas? What about the fact the the hebrew canon differs quite a bit from the present old testament?

No, he did not. There is one woman who knew CD and made that claim, but it is disputed by his friends and family. including his wife who was a Christian.

John Galt is far more than just a character... And as the characters in the book expereince, the search for the answer to the question is much more important than the answer itself. For those who have not read Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged", trying to explain John Galt is much akin to trying to explain the color green to a blind man, or the Beethovens 5th to a deaf man (yes, I know...). Once you understand it, it seems quite simple and you can easily discuss it with someone else who understands it.

Conservation of matter is just a wee bit dated. Pre WWII in fact. Every heard that E=mc^2. That's the equation for the complete destruction of matters and it's conversion to energy in the process. For a more updated view, google "First law of thermodynamics" or "conservation of energy"

That would be a normal reaction. One I might have myself. But, in the context of sceintific method, it is completely wrong because it makes assumptions. There are hundreds of possible explanations for the 'abnormal' alignment of the leaves. For instance, there may have been an object (such as a hose) located there that the leaves blew and rested against. Now removed, the leaves appear to have been placed there deliberately. One might ask, what are the odds of the leaves landing like that. To which, a physicist (or statistician), would likely reply; 100% The more I study physics, the more I am convinced of two things. 1) There is a God. 2) Man is far too eager to grasp seemingly miraculous, but easily explainable, things as proof that God exists.

Yep. Just a small deviation in Plank's constant, and life as we know it would not be the same.

Please take a look at http://www.PowerHouseClean.com and offer your opinions, sugestions, etc. I'm thick skinned (and a capitalist pig), so don't be bashful. If you seriously think it'll make me more money, then feel free to suggest that I'm too ugly to be on the site. Philip

True. But they are not. And in tight races, they make for the deciding votes. So, the politicians in those races better "pander" to the libertarian ideals or face defeat. We're not a powerhouse, but were not a lame duck either.

It is a retail commercial site, and not a forum. So, to be fair I do spend a few pennies on advertising.

Search for my previous thread on well water. I have flash rusted an entire side of a house in 30 seconds with iron rich well water. Oxalic and an x-jet saved my behind.

I disagree. They set a bar that I must strive for. If it were not for "bragging rights", I might still think 50 decks a year is really kicking it. Or that my Olympic deck is a prize winner. Or that a 100 round of golf is really doing well. For people who strive to excel, the champions of this world set a great example. For those who strive to be mediocre, they are just braggarts. People who excel, deserve to be proud. And, "It ain't bragging if you can do it!"

Yes. I was all excited about seeing what all my peers thought about my brand new site, and then WHAM! Have a bite of a big s**t sandwich....

Actually you can check your actual position on alot of SE's using WebPosition (https://www.webposition.com). It periodically scans the SE's for your chosen KW's and reports what it fiind.