White Knight

Evolutionism, as in how life came to be, has not withstood any tests.

I always enjoy hearing stuff like this. Shows a lack of understanding how Science works.

First a scientist decides to test something. He gathers data about it. Then he develops a hypothesis and develops a series of counterpositive tests to DISPROVE his hypothesis.

The scientist submits these tests to his fellows for review. They make comments and propose further tests, which are done and returned for reivew.

After a many iterations of this cycle, THEN and only then is the hypothesis awarded the title of Scientific Theory.

Evolutionism isn't something that a scientist just 'made up' and started spouting. It is something that has been under testing and reflection for many years now. All it takes is a single repeatable test result COUNTER to evolution and it loses that title. For example, IIRC Big Bang was disproven in 1999, hence it lost its Theory title and really isn't spoken of much.

A couple of other "just theories":

Gravity

Relativity

Electricity

Atoms

Continental Plates

Various Dinasaur Demises (space aliens aside)

Macroeconomics

Somethings that are NOT scientific theories:

Santa Claus

Creationism

Easter Bunny

Iraqi WMD

OJ didn't do it

Flying Reindeer (catapult not included)

I think Evolution is in pretty darn good company and Creationism isn't.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/...reut/index.html

 

this is an update. presedent bush said he didnt know about armstrong being paid and blah blah blah, do not endorse, it was bad, wont happen again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<In my best Jim Carrey impression>RrrrrrIIIIiiiiiiiggghhht.....</impression>

Yeah I believe that one all right.

Holy crap.  I agree with WK.  Someone.... check my meds.

golly gee!...I think I'm gonna have a heart attack.

Except for on "The Shield" where it is a crucial part of the show, gives it that realistic grungy edge.  Great show...

Zd you make absolutely perfect sense.

Ok, thats it.

Who are you, and what did you do with the real ZD?????

Its all fuzzy math. Every study I've seen says that the private accounts will have a much higher administrative cost, a HUGE transition cost, and then not a terribly large effect on the actual state of things.

The Administration is using this as cover for the benefits cut that they have in their proposal.

Private spending accounts will not solve SS's mythical problems. They only create more.

Ish its pointless to argue with Soul about this one. He will play the ostrich head-in-the-sand defense until you want to pull your hair out.

He pulls the defense on anything that he is unable to defend his position on...like the prisoner abuse scandal, or the Gitmo prisoners. I'm convinced that deep down inside he realizes that there is a problem, but for the sake of his conscence doesn't want to admit it. Course, thats just a theory (not an accusation or assumption, on a flame).

The USA is in the bottom for number of rapes per population count.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like the definition from the website:

Definition: People victimized by sexual assault (as a % of the total population). Data refer to female population only. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

Perhaps the difference between America and New Zealand (evil Kiwis) is the eptness of Law Enforcement and the acceptance of society for the woman coming forward.

In college I remember a statistic that was striking, but held true from my experience: 1 out of 4 college women had been sexually assualted. Take that with a grain of salt (since I'm not going to go try and dig that fact up), but I've knew a lot of girls, and a good portion of them had been sexually assualted. Heck, I'd say that 1 in 7 girls I knew had been given Rufies. Its really kinda sad.

How do I feel about this? Well, I've always felt that the USA was a bit uptight about sexuality, which I find interesting considering the prevelance of Violence in our culture. I'd also agree with an earlier point that a breast with a little covering can be 10x sexier than a naked breast. I've been to nude beaches and you get over it pretty quick (besides most people at nude beaches shouldn't be nude). Give me a chick in a hot bikini any day over a naked one. Now if later in the same scene she sentuously takes it off, well thats ok with me too, and much hotter.

Something that I am surprised didn't get brought up was that in many african cultures a womans breast is not found to be arousing, it is her legs. That is why you see all the pictures in National Geographic where the woman is topless wearing a long skirt. With that I would deduce that arousal at the sight of breasts is a conditioned response, not a natural one. From there I would argue that our culture created the environment that the naked breast is icky, not nature itself. While some religions do make a big deal about nakedness (mine didn't), I know that many do (Catholasism, Mormanism, Pentacostals, Nazerian), I don't believe it is religion per see, just people with (socially) conservative or puritanical views. You know, the "protect the children from Janet Jackson's nipple" crowd who didn't have any problem at all with Mike Ditka throw footballs through Tire Swings for Levitra (10x worse IMHO).

Course, I'd be a lot happier with TV/Movies if there was more nudity and less violence on...maybe I'm just a bit too progressive. ;-)

I think Huhuh has a good point, but whatever.

I'm glad this is finally over. Lady's been in a coma for like 15 years now...she not coming back, she needs to be let go.

I'd definately recommend the TSX.

We just bought my girlfriend an MDX. We were looking in the high 20's/low 30's sedan, we just made the 'mistake' of driving the MDX and that was what she wanted (so I spent an extra 12K).

We drove every single car in that price range (except for Fords and Dogde's) and the TSX was the winner. More options, more get up and go, nicer styling. I was actually a bit disappointed in the new A4. One of our friends has a chiped 02 A4 that has tons of get up and go and very sweet trim. The new A4 almost seemed drab, was bigger, and was painfully slow.

If we hadn't bought the MDX, she would be driving an TSX.

Btw, if you are willing to go a bit above 30, maybe fork in some of your own dough, the BMW325i is an AWESOME driving car. Drab interior, limited options, but easily the best driving car we drove. I was almost ready to give up my sports car for it (buying an M3 sometime next year).

Good luck and grats on graduation. Lazy, care to forward me your resume, or ya already have a job?

Its definately a Photoshop. I can look at it and tell. Thanks for finding a explanation San.

WoW is amazing. I haven't played EQ2, but I can all but guarantee you WoW is better.

For any of yall that get WoW, I'm playing on the Lightning's Blade server (PVP) and my 2 toon names are Snuggles (lvl 38 Priest) and Threefingers (lvl 12? Mage).

Look me up.

ZD, stop make generalized insulting comments.

Killer, stay on task.

So you don't see this paying this guy a 1/4 million dollars for propoganda as a problem, soul?

Off topic, I'm glad Bush is back for 4 more years too. As Pat Buchanan theorized too, I think hes going to be the worst thing possible for the republican party. You can already tell the cracks are showing.

Like I said - You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Love it. Once again you are unable/unwilling to back up your position.

Thats fine though.

A lie of ommission is just as bad as a straight out lie.

So therefore the Bush Administration are just as bad as liars? Am I understanding you correctly?

I think Shockwave pretty much said it best, so I'll just reword what he typed and say it again.

Michael Moore doesn't lie, he simply takes facts and tells them in ways that support his position.

Its not a rare thing...look at the Bush Administrations portrayal of the Iraq's WMDs for instance. No outright lies, just taking the facts that could support thier position and telling them in a way that makes the issue look cut and dry.

Also look at the programs she has installed. A lot of freeware and shareware apps install icons on your desktop.

If she still cannot get rid of the icon, from the run prompt type 'cmd'.

Navigate using the 'cd' command to your desktop. I don't rem what it is in windows 98, but it is something like c:/users/<her name>/desktop. You can look at the contents of a given directory with the 'dir' command. When you find the icons you want to delete, you can delete the with the 'delete' command.

Hope that helps.

Snoogins.

No offense ZD, but I think the CBS Investigative Panel has access to a lot more information than you do. And THEY found no political bias. So deal with it.

Also another example of how not fair and balanced Fox really is (the lack of that information in their report on the subject).

And? The US does not condone torture. That includes President Bush and Mr. Rove.

Do you believe a man by what he says, or what he does?

Bush says he does not condone torture but he has endorsed its use in Gitmo. He wanted to use it so much that he had his legal team (and new AG) come up with documents narrowly defining what torture is, and come up with new torture techniques to get more information. He likes it so much that he is allowing information gathered by it to be used in the 'hearings' that the men at Gitmo are getting.

Now I ask you, does Mr Bush condone torture? I believe I have shown quite firmly that he does.

I found this to be completely hilarious.

THis guy felt so strongly about this program that he had to get paid a quarter mill to talk about it.

More propoganda dressed up like regular reporting to lie to America.

Just another example of the Bush Administration decieving america.

I guess I fail to see anywhere Christianity has to do with this subject. But hey - you are entitled to your opinion.

Well, many of the people that are ok with the fact that we are torturing these people are the same born again Christians that scream about the degredation of morals in our society...like a Mr. Bush and a Mr. Rove.

Still confused?

Speaking of fair and balanced, your Fox story also didn't mention the other findings of the panel:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/10/c...uard/index.html

The panel, which was led by former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi, added that -- despite accusations of political bias against CBS -- "[the panel] cannot conclude that a political agenda at '60 Minutes Wednesday' drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content."

So it was bad journalism, NOT a political agenda. Hmmm...exactly what I said months ago.

5 months to go for the elections - Should be interesting.

5 months? No, 20 days. Elections are 30 Jan 05.

Still, should be interesting. I'm expecting a civil war by April.

Those are two goodd points that need to be encouraged - along with caps on monetary awards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With Medical Awards costs down to .5% of medical costs, what exactly is limiting monetary awards going to accomplish besides harming those that are permenantly disabled by doctors?

Ok here we go...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/...html?oref=login

According to Congress's budget agency, the system comes up short in 2052; according to the system's trustees, the date is 2042. The year 2018 is when the system's trustees expect they will have to begin dipping into the Social Security trust fund to pay full benefits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...-our-view_x.htm

I thought this was interesting. While I do not agree that there exists a crisis, I do like how they have said what I see as obvious: limits are bad, and proposed different changes, which I agree with.

Comments?