I think what more often happens is that science provides evidence for things that people of the time would have perceived to be supernatural just because they were then unexplainable - e.g. the plagues of Egypt, death of the first born sons, the burning bush, etc. etc.
Will Republicans ignore his talk - answer: no.
Dozens of Republicans are un-endorsing, calling for him to withdraw, etc.
What has this simple question got to do with jesus or christians
I'm asking if a person's Christianity influences their opinion on whether greed is good.
If there was no jesus or christians w@ would you say
I would say what I already said in my other post...
He adds Sodom and Gomorrah
So, we should be more like Lot - whom God favored - and instead of allowing people to have homosexual sex with the two new strangers in town (who are actually angles) - we should let the town gang-rape our virgin daughters instead, right?
What's the lesson from that fable again?
Which did Jesus condemn more: gay marriage or divorce?
Should divorce be illegal?
Do you think same sex marriage was a blessing?
Yes - I think the government not discriminating against people based on your interpretation of old fables is a good thing.
List for me, if you can, all the times Jesus spoke (words in red) against gays...
the unnatural marrying of fallen angels with daughters of men?
This supernatural union supposedly made mighty men of renown:
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."
Does that sound like they are saying it is a bad thing?
Since you refuse to defend your assertions by addressing my post - should I assume you concede the points?
Science that contradicts the flood by Greg Moore, a Christian that believes in an old earth:
---------------------
"[T]he global-Flood model contradicts a vast body of geological and geophysical data. Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires. There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood-the earth simply could not support that many organisms."
"In fact, if the Flood was as catastrophic as young-earth creationists maintain, it is doubtful anything would have survived. The young-earth model would require vertical land erosion of more than 700 feet per day and tectonic uplift of more than 200 vertical feet per day. Anything more than just one foot of erosion or tectonic uplift is sufficient to destroy most modern cities."
"The opossum, for example, shows little change over millions of years. The Cretaceous opossum of 70 million years ago-which most young-earth creationists would classify as pre-Flood because the fossils are found in strata they classify as Flood deposits-is very much like the opossum of today. Such continuous series of similar fossils tells us no divergence has occurred. This indicates the opossum and other species experienced fairly uniform conditions before and after the Flood."
"They assume the aquatic creatures, being aquatic, would not be endangered by global floodwaters. They reason some organisms were able to adjust to the change in salinity caused by the mixing of fresh and salt water, while others survived in pockets or layers of fresh and saltwater. However, if the Flood was a global event, the floodwaters would have been brackish, which would have killed most of the amphibians, freshwater fish and many of the ocean species because each type is adapted to live within a particular salinity range. Organisms on the ocean floor would not have been able to survive the tremendous increase in water pressure. It is also doubtful pockets of fresh and saltwater would have persisted for eleven months given the violent geological processes they say accompanied the Flood."
"Most plants would have been buried by hundreds of feet of sediment. Few of the plants and seeds that floated on the surface would have survived submergence in water, particularly salt water, for many months. Those that did survive would be unlikely to grow since most plants require very particular soil conditions-conditions unlikely to exist based on the catastrophic global-Flood model."
"[W]e would expect to find evidence of a major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm."
"Another problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the food requirements of the carnivores?"
"[N]owhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim."
"[T]he Bible does not state the Flood changed the earth. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the volcanism, mountain uplift and continent formation embedded in the young-earth model. Nor is there any indication the post-Flood world was unstable. If that were the case, surely Noah would have expressed concern about the post-Flood conditions and God would have given Noah special instructions on how he was to survive. Instead, the Bible tells us Noah and his family immediately began farming and planted a vineyard-impossible if the conditions were as harsh as young-earth creationists suggest."
"If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?"
---------------------
See the article for more info and references.
Why do you insist on making Republicans look bad?
------------------
Average monthly job growth
------------------
since 2011: 192,000
under Clinton: 215,000
------------------
under Bush: 39,000
under HW Bush: 62,000
under Reagan: 163,000
for Reagan and HW Bush years: 132,000
------------------
The job growth Bush handed Obama in Jan 2009: -741,000 (yep, that's more than seven hundred thousand jobs LOST) - Damn, Bush was good wasn't he!?
8 years of Bush resulted in a final quarter GDP of -8.2% - why is that??
It states quite clearly:
"According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), about half of the shrinkage of the traditionally shallow Lake Chad has been caused by climatic changes, and the other half by high demand for agricultural water."
When I post a link to a one-page magazine article - you say "What are you saying? a link is not an argument! I don't respond to links, they are to support arguments!"
But you can post a 2+ hour video and suddenly the same no longer applies??
This is proof for He is coming soon!??
I don't think so.
Re: chirality, etc.:
See also: God of the gaps / argument from ignorance.
Re: chance:
Think of every decision you have ever made and every possibility available for each chance - now multiply the probability of all of those happening exactly in the order they happened and within a single lifetime - is the number so large that it proves you don't exist?
Re: from the lesser can come the greater:
yes - here are a few examples - this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.
A) You pasted the same thing twice - did you mean to paste something else?
B) how does this refute what I said or the Supreme Court decision?
C) we are getting pretty far from the topic.
Not off to a great start - "Movie She Banned From Theaters" - she didn't ban anything from theaters because it wasn't even going to be played in a theater - it was going to be video-on demand on cable - I remember because it was a major discussion point during oral arguments on the case.
I love that site - I was always shocked by how young the guy who does it is - he's 31 now, and the site has been running for 10+ years.
If you read the Koran - do you think you would automatically believe it and become Muslim?
If you read the Iliad - would you instantly believe the Greek gods exist?
If that person was only going to rape you or your wife, etc., you think it should be illegal for you to shoot them?
Sure.
sea-level rise increases coastal erosion, forces people who live near sea level to move further inland, increases salt-water intrusion of freshwater aquifers, increases hurricane strength and storm surge damage, etc.:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
http://time.com/4018544/obama-climate-change-alaska/
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article41141856.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/americas/
We are already seeing the effects of warming through changes in tree lines, animal migrations, growing seasons, shifting jet-stream, widening tropical belt, Arctic/Antarctic/Greenland ice loss, increase in record hot days vs record cold days, warmer nights during heat waves, glacial retreat, a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity, a doubling of the land area with serious drought, longer wildfire seasons, increased ground-level ozone pollution, etc., etc., etc.…
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/
http://www.livescience.com/
http://www.nature.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.ucsusa.
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/
K-12 schools spend around $6 billion on energy every year - the largest operating expenditure after personnel costs (more than textbooks and computers combined.)
Efficient schools can use three times less energy. Improvements often include replacing lighting, adding insulation, replacing heating and cooling equipment, installing energy management systems and controls, using ENERGY STAR qualified equipment, adding solar systems, replacing windows, doors and roofs, adding a reflective roof coating, etc.
"Use sustainably grown regular paper (FSC/SFI)"
Use sustainably grown regular lumber (FSC/SFI).
still having a hard time with that, eh?
Some construction projects can reduce emissions in the long run, yes.
While building/rebuilding infrastructure, we can do things to reduce emissions.
Building/updating schools and other government buildings with more efficient heating/air and appliances, LED lighting, double-pane windows, etc., etc. will reduce emissions and cost the tax payers less in the long-run.
Building mass transit.
More roads means more productivity and better efficiency - and cars spending less time polluting.
Increasing renewable energy infrastructure.
etc. etc.
the DBCooper concession - repeat the previous non-sense after it was answered.
accepted.
change the word paper to the word lumber - not too bright are ya
Same.
Use sustainably grown regular paper (FSC/SFI) or use other types of sustainable paper.
Sure, they can - it is just better for the environment (and the company) to plant another tree.
We wouldn't have Al-gebra - which might seem like a great thing if you're in middle-school, but I'm sure it would mean living without a lot of other things, too
Presumably you would agree that all Irish should not be branded terrorists because of the actions of the IRA, correct? Should the US not allow immigration from Ireland, etc.?
Use sustainably grown regular paper (FSC/SFI) or use other types of sustainable paper.
Congress open every session with a prayer
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit out of the armies will never be less so; and a failure of religious instruction & exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will rarely happen: and if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack of public devotion in that devout age.
The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad one.
Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.
Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.
The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea."
- Madison
How on Earth could our courtroom walls have the ten commandments on them if it went against the 1st amendment.
They don't and aren't allowed to have just a 10 commandments.
The Supreme Court has a depiction of Moses, but it is along with Confucius and Solon and references law giving in general from a historical context - not a Judeo-Christian bias.
There are, of course, many sources of increased CO2 that could be regulated - fuel efficiency, energy generation, deforestation, etc. etc.
As I've asked you several times without response - do you have the right to self-defense for risk of harms other than death?
If you cap the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, that level will go back down over time.
Some will die, some will be forced from their homes, many will be otherwise negatively affected.
Cap and trade was supported by many Republicans and is generally regarded as a conservative/market-based policy rather than blanket government regulation.
It is, of course, completely observable by anyone who lives in a dense city.
http://nationalgeographic.org/
The irony there is delicious - warming skeptics used to say warming wasn't happening and was just the result of the heat island effect on the measurements. Now apparently they don't happen at all. Way to not know what you're talking about.
i have never seen a dangerous heat island
You apparently don't know what one is.
i have always been able to launch my boat.
Then sea-level rise must not be happening - wait, what?
Do you think everyone who used to fish on Lake Chad can still launch their boat?
CO2 is not damaging the atmosphere
Define "damaging the atmosphere".
So the point your trying to make is what ?
You posted the article - so, the point your(sic) trying to make is what?
Which do you dispute:
— The Northwest is projected to experience changes in the timing of streamflow that will reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.
— The Southwest is projected to experience increased heat, drought, insect outbreaks, and wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.
— The Great Plains is projected to experience rising temperatures leading to increased demand for water and energy. In parts of the region, this will constrain development, stress natural resources, and increase competition for water. New agricultural practices will be needed to cope with changing conditions.
— The Midwest is projected to experience extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding that will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
— The Northeast is projected to experience increased precipitation, more frequent and intense storms, and higher average temperatures. These projected changes pose challenges to communities as they protect water and waste infrastructure, maintain water quality, and protect air quality and public health. Many communities are building resilience to the risks they face under current climatic conditions.
— The Southeast region is projected to experience higher average temperatures, increased precipitation, and more frequent and intense storms. These projected changes pose challenges to communities as they diversify water source, protect sensitive wetlands and protect people from heat waves. Climate impacts vary from a wet northern area to a dry southwest area.
— The Hawai'i and Pacific Islands are projected to experience warmer oceans leading to increased coral bleaching and disease outbreaks and changing distribution of tuna fisheries. Freshwater supplies will become more limited on many islands. Coastal flooding and erosion will increase. Mounting threats to food and water security, infrastructure, health, and safety are expected to lead to increasing human migration.
— Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the nation, bringing widespread impacts. Sea ice is rapidly receding and glaciers are shrinking. Thawing permafrost is leading to more wildfire, and affecting infrastructure and wildlife habitat. Rising ocean temperatures and acidification will alter valuable marine fisheries.
When it is your death.
(or a loved one, etc.)
(or someone that makes your life better - even if unknowingly.)
Who said CO2 at 400 ppm kills trees? oh right, nobody.
If you can't attack facts - a strawman comes in handy.
Greed, like basically everything, is both good and bad.
While greed is a necessary element of capitalism and helps drive things like innovation - greed in the short term might have less long term success than fostering relationships, etc.
Greed also obviates the need for several functions of government - fair dealing in contracts, rule of law / not taking things by force, etc.
Greed is a product of human evolution in environments of scarcity - if we are able to achieve, through technology, etc., an environment of abundance - greed will become obsolete.
Do Christians actually believe:
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
- Timothy 6:10
and:
"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” "
- Luke 18:22
?
There might be a case to be made that it would diminish psychological barriers to causing human death.
Staying calm while lying doesn't really count as a win for me.
For people who judge based on facts rather than style (granted that number seems to be dwindling) - Kaine did better on that score.
Tim Kaine helped his candidate in the long run; Pence did not defend his candidate and setup the inevitable commercials showing Pence disagreeing with Trump.
What if you are the intended victim - do you have the right to self-defense? Does that mean you side with death?
as to fetal pain - we can and do handle it the same way as pain for the mother - anesthesia.
Since you are pretty new here, I would love for you to take a look at my related debate and offer some input.
Basically, I think abortion is self-defense and we should start treating it and talking about it as such. I think this appeals to the more conservative-minded folks and avoids certain arguments like definition of a child/infant, etc.
says nothing about who was in control and voting when these no restriction laws were passed.
They weren't passed - no restriction is the default. You have to pass a law to have a restriction.
First, the same rules of self-defense that apply to you should be your guide on the rules for women.
Second, not everything you think is immoral should necessarily be made into a law - casual sex, pornography, getting drunk, lying, etc.
Third, making abortion illegal makes them doesn't stop them, and makes them far less safe. (ref)
Fourth, pregnancy is complicated - laws against abortion inevitably result in the government investigating miscarriages, arresting women for chosing natural childbirth when a doctor recommends a c-section, forcing women to have a c-section which kills her and the baby, etc.
Fifth, women aren't casually aborting 30 week old fetuses just to fit into that little black dress.
In summary - a bad solution to a non-problem.
Look at the nine states that have no restrictions.
Just to clarify - there are only 8 entries that are blank.
So, 7 states and DC.
And 5 of those have either a Republican Governor, or a Republican majority in their State House or Senate.
AK Republican governor, state senate/house (ALL THREE)
CO Republican majority in state senate
NH Republican majority in state senate / house
NJ Republican governor
NM Republican governor, state house
(and the US Congress/President can technically override the local DC government)
if a person looks at those qualities in one person and thinks they are positive - can they then use them as reasons to hate a different person?
Pence said: "Donald Trump and I would never support legislation against women who make the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy".
Have Trump and Pence become pro-choice?
President Barack Obama said global warming “contributed” to the Syrian civil war
So do scientists and the military.
nah - welcome to DBCooper (previously outlaw60) - just one of the site trolls.
He says about 10 things and repeats them 1,000 times - even when you've shown them to be completely false.
when those same attributes are far more attributable to trump, it just means he's smart and good at business, etc.
One of those is fake and one of those happened live on C-SPAN - can you tell which is which?
The federal government has over 4 million employees.
If running a business provides good experience for running the government because of overlapping skills, then the opposite would also be true.
78 consecutive months of private sector job growth (the longest in history) resulting in more than 15 million jobs - ref
They know something about stimulating demand.
and building roads/highways, ports/lighthouses, hospitals, utility (water/sewer/electric) infrastructure,
and public school teachers, cops, fire-fighters, etc.
employs inspectors, lawyers, IT folks, etc. etc. etc.
and, of course, tons of others...
along with the added demand created by those people spending money.
Already addressed:
Obama: 2.00%
W Bush: 1.66%
Also, Dems have outperformed Republicans on GDP historically ref
Also, GDP for 4th Quarter 2008 was -8.2%, the worst in 50 years - thank you Bush, right?
What would count as fully informed consent?
Should the scientist learn to speak Havasu? Detail all possible current genetic studies? predict all possible future studies?
Should we not tell people there is no Santa Claus?
Also, it sure would be easier to not tell them the lies in the first place, right?
That is an inaccurate reading of the story:
"The geneticist responsible for the research has said that she had obtained permission for wider-ranging genetic studies."
Science shows that the earth is not the center of our solar system, and that the sun and moon aren't in our atmosphere, or that fruit trees require sunlight to grow, and that pigeons exposed to random stimuli become superstitious, etc. - if religious people feel disrespected by those findings, should we stop doing science?
From the article:
"The geneticist responsible for the research has said that she had obtained permission for wider-ranging genetic studies."
The did ask for broad consent - the issue is whether the consent was valid.
Yes they should. If you don't agree with scientific findings, it is not my responsibility to ease your cognitive dissonance.
Also:
the deficit has gone down more than two-thirds during his presidency (back to 2003, 2004 levels)
stock markets are at record highs
corporate profits high
78 consecutive months of private sector job growth (the longest in history) resulting in more than 15 million jobs
unemployment below 5% (basically full employment)
The current black unemployment is lower than the average for any year on record except 1999 and 2000
home prices have recovered
wages are going up
poverty down
food stamps down
violent crime down
Non-business bankruptcies are down 40% since 2010
Business bankruptcies are down more than 55% to below 2007 levels
Consumer Confidence Index its highest level in 9 years
already told you:
Quarterly Average if you assign the first quarter of a President's time in office to the previous President (as the new President has not implemented their policies and had them take effect yet):
Obama: 2.00%
W Bush: 1.66%
Clinton: 3.76%
HW Bush: 2.06%
When the government funds building a new bridge, whom do you suppose they hire?
If you can't refute, change the question.
The government's job is basically to do what the people elect them to do.
I've already explained this to you before...
Government projects like building infrastructure create increased demand in private sector.
People that work in the government also spend much of the money they make in the private sector, etc.
she lied about Benghazi
How so?
and the list goes on
Does it though?
Yes, the government can create jobs - both though direct hiring for public sector jobs and through increasing overall demand.
From the debate description:
"and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned "
"none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college"
"or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot"
So, it is relevant to point out both that we are creating jobs and that wages are growing, right?
