I read the definition the first time.

You fail to see the irony of calling organic food organic. Either all food is organic or none of it is because it is produced with water.

Water is an inorganic substance.

You got that right cyber.

Xaeon

You have a wiley habit of taking my quotes out of context. Please stop doing that.

My first two quotes in your rebuttal refer to your statement...

You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up

You see lot's of them. You're wrong

"We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits."

So what? I entered "evolution is right" and got 144,000,000 hits.

So what...reference above. This is an example of you taking my quote out of context and replying to something I never said.

The point is not, who has the most quotes, the point is that you made a statement that is wrong. That statement is...

You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up

You do.

In the next two quotes of mine you do the exact same thing again. Please read my post.

Xaeon says

What money is there to be made by evolution being a fact? The money is understanding HOW evolution works and being able to take advantage of this (which, by the way, we already do with the domestication of animals).

Please tell my you're not serious? The more discoveries you make the more funding you get. It's not a difficult concept.

But once again you take a quote of mine out of context. We were refering to Nat. Geo., Smithsonian and other mainstream "publications" you switched my wording to "science" and for some reason I went with that. Maybe I was trying to communicate with you on your level?

It is this sentence here that shows your misunderstandings the best. Evolution is what happens. Natural selection is HOW it happens. Evolution, as I've said so many times, is an observed fact. Science isn't in some kind of struggle with this as you are making out. Science knows this is a fact and that is that:

Believe it or not I agree.

The problem for me is that I assumed fact meant absolute certainty. It doesn't. The whole time I should have said evolution is not an absolute cerntainty.

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted. You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true.

Whoa...this is so wrong on so many levels.

You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true

Einstein’s “Blunder” is Right, After All; Journal of Young Scientist © 2007 Falishia Sloan, Science Journalist

We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits.

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted

Are you serious? Look at the debate here. Mainstream science can make a lot of money on this subject and has made a lot of money on this subject. You don't think they would make a big deal about a definitive evolution 'smoking gun'?

Just look at how much attention is paid to the numerous specimens vying for 'missing link' status since Lucy's discovery. I may not be the most science savvy guy but I do know what makes money and this subject is one of the few, in science, that captures the passion of the layman. This is a 'crossover' over subject if there ever was one.

I'll say it again. Evolution is fact. The process by which it takes place (natural selection) is what may be up for debate.

You have it backwards. Natural selection is a fact...your pepper moth article proves that. Hell the current size of an NFL lineman probably proves that. The theory of Evolution is not a fact.

"I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too."

Wrong. Find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution AND isn't affected by his decision due to his religious convictions. You won't find a single one.

Xaeon...don't mess with what I was saying...that's not nice. I stated earlier in this debate I believe in evolution.

I was referring to the pepper moth article. The article itself said scientist don't agree on a lot of the points the author was making in that article.

Made

I read the article what does that have to do with what I said?

No where in the wikipedia article does it say food grown without water. There is no such thing as organic food.

Or you could say all food is organic. Choices?

With so many adjectives why chose to call it call it 'organic' when the major growing medium is inorganic? You might as well call the Titanic unsinkable.

Made I hope I get more then just water for breakfast.

Peppered Moth is observational proof of genetic drift.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right.

I read the article and I don't see evolution taking place but I'm not a scientist. I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too.

It goes back to the smoking gun post I left earlier. None of the mainstream science is touting this...wikipedia puh-lease.

There is no such thing as organic food

All food is grown in water. Water is not an organic substance.

Shunted

I figured someone would bring this up. Mormans carry a Bible with them. They believe Christ is the son of God. They just don't have the same views of God that most traditional Christians have.

So what? Do they have to interperet everything the exact same way as everyone else? Is there no room for a little leeway?

Toe-may-toe...toe-ma-toe get over it.

I agree that generations apply to the species. I've been reading some of your examples from earlier posts.

I'm not enough of a scientist to be able to discern the subtleties pointed out in plants for instance. Is it truly a new species if it's a hybrid?

The thing I do know is that there is still enough disagreement amongst scientist that the smoking gun hasn't been found.

It could be a matter of promotion/ignorance but if the smoking gun had been found Nat. Geo. would have had blazing headlines. The Smithsonian, Scientific American any number of mainstream publications would be clamoring for definitive proof.

Think about it. Big headlines for life on Mars. Lucy. Hype sells and evolution is one of the biggest mysteries in science.

The article, from you, "Observed Instances of Speciation" doesn't come right out and say evolution has been proved. The scientist, Joseph Boxhorn, who wrote the article begins with all kinds of caveats.

That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula.

I just looked up proof in "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary" ©1997 and it didn't say anything about a 'mathematical formula'.

I believe in evolution but it is impossible to ever prove it now. Eventually we will be able to document the evolutionary processes of current species but until then it's a theory.

The key phrase in the theory of evolution is, "...over many generations..." it's barely been many generations since it was even proposed.

As an example...Einstein said light could bend. The majority of physicist in the world showed calculation after calculation explaining exactly why light could, would and should bend but until the proper instruments were invented and the proper situation occured it couldn't be proven. We now know it's a fact.

All the lab work, DNA results and field studies mean nothing until the process, taking 'many generations' is documented.

Pao

I read three of the links you gave and based on those they are definately Christian.

It's a matter of interpretation but the bottom line is that they believe in Christ therefore they're Christian.

Toe-may-toe...toe-ma-toe...they carry a bible and believe in Jesus. If you believe in Jesus then you're a Christian.

I don't think the United States should have armies in 130 nations around the world.

I would tend to agree. Let other countries take care of themselves.

Can you imagine if China had troops stationed in Mexico, or Canada? America would flip the hell out.

Only because those countries are our allies.

I believe Russia has/had troops in Cuba. I don't see anyone flipping out.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 911_was_an_inside_job

Apparently I was too much for the dude. Never countered anything I wrote but decided to hide instead.

I guess there's nothing like a point by point dismantling.

The reason why no one invades Switzerland is because they don't have anything anyone wants. They always remain neutral and the topography of a mountainous country makes it logistically difficult to invade.

I agree but who cares what we think. Wear away.

Kid

Global warming is most likely a normal cycle; which may or may not be exacerbated by humans. It's consequences may or may not be as bad as most experts would lead us to believe.

That being said...there is no way you can call it a "myth". It's very real. All sides pro and con agree on this.

C'mon it's 2008.

JITS SAYS

You say that cars are considered as WEAPONS by the cops? They are not considered as a WEAPONS. They are used by cops as roadblocks and chasing activities. Do you think them as MURDERS? Quite funny though! That is a funny point you have raised.

"Jeff Joseph, a law professor with the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said police officers are often held blameless in San Diego County when they fire on vehicles if those vehicles are coming at them in a threatening manner.

"There is no question that a vehicle can constitute a deadly weapon, but the question is, is that the way it was being used?" Joseph said. By PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer | Friday, April 18, 2008 North County Times

"Some people choose a gun or their fists, but some choose their cars," said Detective Constable Paul Lobsinger, who works on the hit-and-run squad with Toronto police. "I am seeing them more often than I used to. Often it's a case of impatience or rage." SUZANNE MA From Friday's Globe and Mail August 11, 2006

Google "Car as a weapon", 2,820,000 hits and the two quotes above say you're wrong.

JITS SAYS

Just consider the prime uses of the things which are considered weapons by you.

Who cares about the "prime" use of an item. You said knives and cars weren't commonly used as murder weapons. They are.

JITS SAYS

Firstly, knives and cars are not commonly used to murder people.

Once again they are. That takes care of the first third of my post.

You ignored the second third of my post. I will rephrase. Will the banning of guns stop people from killing? The answer is no.

The last third dealt with looking beyond...gun kill...gun bad. Please take some time to reread it.

Wow...the History Channel and TLC or Discovery both did animated stories of exactly why the WTC suffered a catastrophic collapse.

Even at the time of the collapse architects and engineers both agreed that the temperatures created by burning jet fuel is more then enough to melt girders. Collapse would have been inevitable. The only question was the speed with which it took place.

The problem was two fold. All the girders and support structures were insulated. What happened was that the inertia of a plane wasn't taken into account and the insulation was basically 'knocked' off as the plane hit. That still shouldn't have been enough.

The second part of the problem is that the central core of the building, where the elevators were, is 'the' support structure for the building. Plans originally called for stronger walls surrounding this core. They were replaced with simpler facings. It's not entirely clear how much of a difference the original design would have helped but it is clear that the redesign did absolutely nothing to impede the momentum of the aircrafts.

Structural damage to that core was the major cause of the WTC collapse.

But let's go with the theory, I think, you're proposing.

Hire/inspire a large group of terrorist into committing a coordinated attack. Then coordinate that with operatives planting some type of thermal device within the WTC building. There by doubling your chances that either end of the plot will be discovered.

Let's say I buy your theory.

1. Why is it so important to collapse two entire towers? I may not be an expert in psychology but an attack on the towers and the pentagon killing hundreds, should be more then enough to spur the American people to exact revenge.

Even if you say it is important. Both...Both...Both Towers??? You are asking me to believe that our government wouldn't be happy if hundreds died and they could tie it into terrorism. They wouldn't be happy if a thousand died, "a" tower collapsed and they could tie it into terrorism. You want me to believe that our government wanted thousand"s" to die, two towers to collapse and tie it all into terrorism. So basically you're saying Bush wanted to hit the "big bang trifecta"?

The same Bush who displays incompetency like ornaments on a Christmas tree. The same Bush who had a difficult time coordinating government relief in New Orleans? With experienced agencies who've coordinated relief efforts before mind you.

This alone should be enough but let's say I still believe your theory has merit...

2. Is the catastrophic collapse worth exponentially increasing your risk of discovery; two ends of a plot, more people involved, a longer money trail, added complexity???

3. Why attack the pentagon too?

4. Why bother to cover up the thermal devices within??? If someone figures it out, roll your eyes in wonder and confirm how brilliantly conceived the terrorist plot truly was.

5. Same as #2. Is the cover up worth increasing your chance of discovery. You pointed out how easy it was to discover the truth?

6. Is it possible the 'molten steel' wasn't mentioned because who cares? What difference does it make? There was paper littered all over the place. They didn't mention that. There was a lady on a wheelchair in the stairwell they didn't mention that. Oh my what are we to read into all these omissions?

Szechuan...you are the person the terrorist were targeting. All the people in the tower were killed to get to you. People like you sowing the seeds of doubt. People like you spreading paranoia. Don't let the terrorists get to you Szechuan. Remain strong; if not for your country then for apple pie and hot dogs.

This is just too easy.

If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless.

What? That's exactly how a lot of crimes are solved. Who stands the most to gain? Who has gained?

Example:

Did you know that Larry Silverstein...collected something like 14 Billion in insurance claims?

This may be valid or may be a coincidence but, if true, is a good place to start. Then take some time and build your case but to speculate does nothing but let guys like me have an easy time pointing out all you're doing is speculating without evidence.

1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, and

Yes. Mystery solved.

is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?

No. Another mystery solved.

and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe!

What is so hard to believe? You don't solve many problems do you? Some times it helps the creative process to contemplate the ridiculous. Sometimes it hurts to contemplate the ridiculous because you can get sidetracked. The point is that it's a process.

Now if you told me the ship was at the bottom of the Bay...well that would be hard to believe.

The 9/11 commission omits the presence of molten steel from their official report.

The 9/11 commission omitted it because...??? What is this deep dark secret they don't want the American public to know?

Which, according to you is easily figured out anyway.

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay...

OMG. Couple of CIA guys brainstorming for solutions to a problem and people go nuts. If that's the worst of what they contemplated...I'm not impressed.

I'm sure conspiracies happen all the time but they are so rare as to be insignifigant. My wife and I can't even agree on a restaurant.

Jits

Firstly, knives and cars are not commonly used to murder people.

Both are used to 'murder' people all the time. It is true that guns are responsible for the majority of murders but knives are number two and cars are considered weapons by the police.

Your point is that Guns murder people so they should be banned. If that truly is your sole point then that's riduculous because banning guns wont stop murders. Murderers will just use something else; knives, poisons, explosives, their own hands.

Do you really think a criminal intent on killing will say to himself, "Darn, I can't kill now because guns are illegal?".

Jits. Do you collect anything, pez dispensers, baseball cards, broken hearts...anything? If you do maybe you'll be able to relate to the need for guns. Think about it.

Guns represent history. Guns represent the ingenuity of man. Guns are one of the simplest, most efficient machines ever created. Take some time to look beyond the obvious...gun kill...gun bad.

Second do you understand that as an immigrant they don't have to pay taxes...

No I don't understand. Where's the proof? If this is true then change the law.

More curious then concerned but I'm just wondering how the vote for this thread is 3 to 6 when only one person is opposed to immigration.