Katzwinkel, I truly feel sorry for you. That anger that you have will be a detriment in your life. My guess, though, is that you probably already know that. Ask your friends for help.

Eight Cruds today on my comments and no rebutting comments. When you can't attack the message and you are out of subterfuge, try to wound the messenger. That in a microcosm is exactly what the liberals are doing to SP.

I love golden globes. In fact, I love globes of all colors and hues.

What a miraculous phenomenon! What are the chances that this common chemical reaction can be induced so easily, and perform so perfectly as to allow the many critical benefits to mankind? – (see argument on Intelligent Design)

Take away spell check, add in eye problems and my age, and I'm lucky to get any of the print right considering I am typing in about 8 font. Now that I know that the grammar police are out, I will attempt to be more careful. In any case, in my first entry I believe that I gave adequate support to SP being smart. What have you provided that supports your assertion that she is not? I'm not sure what your reference to Kaczynski was supposed to prove.

I believe that there is zero chance of her winning a presidential election, and it sounds like you believe that as well. You also said that you doubt that she will even be an influence. So why the big deal in the ad hominem attacks? What Democrats should be doing for their own short term political benefit is to lay off. Sarah Palin's spliltting the conservative vote is the only chance the Obama has to be a two term president. It only takes a few strategic votes to swing an election, reference Ralph Nader in 2000. I don't remember any outrage in his running for office, and he certainly was not qualified to be president. As far as your assertions about SP. You don't like her speech. That's the way they talk where she comes from. Speech patterns are obviously hard to change, ask Henry Kissinger and Arnold. They have been in the states for how many decades and they still talk like they just got off the boat. You talk about deceit and double talk. She is no worse that any of the bunch in Washington. How about your president? Compare his campaign promises to what he has done, not to mention his declining any knowledge that Jeremiah Wright is a racist. So, i stand by my assertion. You might have even have helped me prove it.

Admit it Liberals. You are afraid of her, and not because of the notion that she will become President. The fear is that some of the long standing bastion of young liberal women will like her style and, god forbid, see value in conservative thought. While I do believe she is smart and has a special appeal, I must admit that she is not Presidential material. Now to the point of her being smart, give up your personal insults as the ruse that it is. I challenge you out there in ArgueHow Land to compare your high intellect selves to this women. First, I submit that high intellect is correlated to personal accomplishments and wealth. Not to say that all smart people are rich and all dumb people are all poor. That is absurd, but certainly there is a pattern. So, from a personal accomplishment standpoint, stand up if you have ever been the nominee for the VP of the US. Stand up if you have ever been a state governor or simply the mayor of a small town. Stand up if your picture is on the cover of a book of any kind other than your family album, and keep standing if you have made millions of dollars off of the sales of that book. Stand up if you have ever been paid to make a speech to a large audience, let alone to the tune of $100,000. I’m guessing that not one out there is standing. One last challenge, stand up if you think with a couple of month of preparation you could go in front of a television audience of millions of people and appear totally calm and hold your own in a one-on-one debate with a lifelong career politician of the caliber of Joe Biden. Admit it. That collection of accomplishments constitutes the traits of a poised and smart women.

Even if it did not change prices, the money spent would be domestic and the billions of dollars spent would have an internal ripple effect on jobs and GDP. Also we would not be giving money to countries that do not have our interest at heart.

Yoyokirby

What "experiment" are you referencing? i don't recall man creating a new species.

otm_shank
Good for you. You actually made an argument and supported your position. We are making progress.

I believe that i have made two points. First, since political views are so starkly and consistently diametric, i think that the difference lies in the thought process. Second, the liberal and conservative positions are guided by inductive and deductive reasoning, respectively. If somehow you have interpreted me to say that a person thinks one way and one way only, you have misinterpreted what i have said. A couple more examples. Obama's campaign slogan was " Hope and change." I don't think you will ever hear a conservative say that inductive phrase when it comes to politics. Obama, in my opinion is a major inductive thinker. He came into office with an immense amount of power. Again in my opinion, only an inductive thinker could belive that congress was the best place to craft his undefined vision of universal healtcare. Regarding national defense, only an inductive thinker could think that going to Egypt and labeling the US as a "torture nation" would improve the status of the US with the terrorists.

To elwoodlaw. i agree that there are many elements that go into making political decisions, with gut instinct and prejudice being right up there on the top. What drivve me to conclude that the thought process is important is that positions on issues that are far different such as environment, national defense, welfare, and school systems can be predicted based on political persuation. This consistency in varied scenarios is the key to me.

otm_shank
you are correct in asserting that my argument is from inductive reasoning and that i am a conservative. I do not contend that people of either political persuasion are solely restricted to a single thought process. I truly enjoy inductive reasoning more, and i have put other such arguments on this web page. The most entertaining thought process is inductive. In fact that is why i suggest that most comics are liberal. Liberal, extrapolative humor, is much funnier than conservative humor.

Wow, Huge, don’t hold back. I do now get the quote, but must admit that I’m not an aficionado of Adam Sandler. I’ll take the quote, however as your opinion. Are you just closed minded or just so lost in your own dogma that you cannot appreciate new thoughts? I notice also that the quote speaks for the thoughts of others. This is a common tactic of the weak minded. Another tactic of the weak minded is to ignore the hypothesis and thrust ad hominem attacks rather than assert your own thesis, in this case, on how conservative and liberals can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions given the same set of facts. In addition I have to assume that your including the invocation of God in the quote is colloquial. I don’t take you as a God fearing man. Lastly, you should change your name to “Small.”

I have often marveled at stark differences in situation analyses and conclusions drawn by die hard conservative and liberals. I have concluded that the ultimate positions that are arrived at regarding a set of circumstances could not be solely based on beliefs and values. Moreover, there must be a basic difference in methods of processing information. I have done some research on this, but have come up empty for scholarly input. So, you will hear it here first. My basic premise is that conservative thought is guided by deductive reasoning and liberal thought is governed by inductive reasoning. I would like add that either type of thought is not right or wrong, but there are circumstances where one might be more appropriate than the other. I will submit one simple example of application and then open the discussion/argument. For example, liberal thought on welfare would start inside and extrapolate outward to a solution. That is they would look at the individuals and conclude from their analysis of selected individuals that on a personal level, if certain persons that they know were just given a break, everything would be alright. The solution is to give them any help they need and they will become productive. A conservative would start on the outside and see that billions of dollars have been provided to the underprivileged and the problem not gotten any better. They would not personalize their observations, but look inward to see trends and groupings. In their observations they would see legions of able bodied people choosing to take welfare instead of working for low pay. They would also see a whole class of welfare people who have been trapped in the system. The conservative solution is to limit welfare and make the able bodied work regardless of how they suffer by staying unproductive.

just a couple of applicable cliches: first, "if the shoe fits, wear it.," and second, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.........it's a duck."

Like Michael Corleone said, "just when I thought I was out.........they pull me back in." Having participated in this web experiment for while now, i have made a startling observation. This is that there is a common technique used in philosophical arguments by people who have no particular facts or opinions of there own to offer. I think these people could be characterized as "pot shotters." Rather than taking the whole of the discussion/argument they take little snippets and twist them around in attempt to paint a false restatement of the other person's position. Remarkably, they apparently believe that this effort proves their point! For example, Krista17 directly addresses my entries and makes her first point by providing a definition that incorporates "a belief in a supernatural creator" to disprove the premise. Surprise, Krist17, there are more than one definition of religion. Also, i have made it clear that i am not arguing semantics, but function. Her second point is actually my premise, and i agree with it. Depending upon how one approaches any activity, it can functionally become a religion to them. If a person's whole life was poured into working on model trains, and they immersed themselves into it, preached the greatness of it and make it their life's passion, guess what, model trains would be their religion! lastly, my reference to Hitler, this was in response to otm_shank's statement that there is no dogma for atheism. The reference to Darwin's book was only an aside to show the passion that some people have on the subjection. Furthermore, Krista17 then proceeds to support my point by drawing a parallel between what is said and ill effect of other religions.

otm_shank

I think we are like trains passing in the night. You repeatedly misstate my position. I have never said that I have rejected evolution as a theory. I just don't claim evolution to be a science, nor do the experts. What i have pointed out is that on a molecular level, science cannot explain why these molecules act like organisms carrying out tasks. Current science does not even attempt to explain why this happens. As i mentioned about inorganic chemistry, there are reams of electronegativity tables that help predict reactions, but nothing exists to explain why a single molecule in a cell will perform a task.

I have enjoyed Tarantino films in the past, and to some degree I enjoyed this one. In the other films that I can recall, the actions of the characters affected a smaller group of people. They did not change the course of history. Since he choose to have his characters make such an impact on his fictional history, I think he did so for a purpose. It appears to me that the larger question he poses is, "Can a small amount of barbaric behavior be justified if it averts the death of hundreds of thousands of people?" I have not done an exhaustive search of reviews of this movie. So, maybe this has already been addressed. If so, i would be interested in reading about it.

otm-shank

It seems like deja vou all over again. The only conflict in my positions is in your mind. Where does any knowledgeable source say that evolution is anything but a theory, and when did i dismiss it? Also, with regard to ID, i have described it as the best explanation available for the design and origin of the universe. Apparently, you don't like to be confronted with the mysteries of the universe, whether it be life of chemical design. Aren't you a just a little curious about these matters beyond a Walter Cronkite, "Well, that's the way it is."

So other than an escape from reality.what was the point? were these good guys or bad guys? If this sort of behavior could have ended the war earlier, was that a good thing? Was this sort of behavior common place during WWII? There must have been one over riding theme, but i am still missing it.

I did not get it. Someone please explain the point of the picture.

Again, otm_shank, you have missed the point. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a term that generally predates molecular biology. Also, its updated spin off "theories" it have nothing at all to do with the driving forces among reaction. I'm talking about the mechanism in the cell that no one even attempts to explain. My point in my first entry was that the actions of molecules in inorganic chemistry can be generally explained by one driving force, electronegativity; but still, inorganic chemistry is very complex. Within cells there are operations, i.e. the movement of the strands f DNA, the splitting of the bonds in the DNA one-by-on, and ad infinitum. These things are just assumed to be given within the "design" of chemistry............Also, just something to consider. Arguing is much more that just taking what the other person says, twisting it, and restating it in an erroneous manner.

otm_shank

i really can't argue with your points, basically because they don't make any sense. When did i say that ID was really anything more that the best explanation for a very unlike set of circumstances? " Another clear observation is that you have virtually no knowledge beyond newspaper articles about general chemistry or physics, let alone a field as complicated as molecular biology.

Also, "plead insanity? Take a chill pill and get a life!

I have never been one to idolize athletes, but i admit that i did put Tiger on a pedestal. Certainly it had a lot to do what elwoodlaw-for points out, but more with the fact that he appeared to be a great human being. It is obvious now, however that he is the fraud described by elwoodlaw-against. He profited greatly as a result of a manufactured and terribly false image. There is few things as repulsive to me as being conned, and Tiger is truly a con artist. Tiger also road the wave of fan support, and i believe that benefits an athlete greatly. I think he will never be the golfer he was before this incident, and i will never cheer him on again.

Godwin's Law - I like that. Sia-nara.

Evolution as a theory - yes. Evolution as a science - no way!
I get a kick out of spazol, regarding his implied studying of evolution. To put the study of evolution in perspective, I submit the following. Arguably the most difficult courses in undergrad chemistry and chemical engineering are Physical Chemistry and Kinetics, respectively. These courses essentially deal with determining equilibrium points of inorganic chemical reactions under various conditions such as pH, temperature, and the presence of like anions and cations in solution. The driving force for reaction is electronegative forces. With that said, Organic reactions are often too complex to predict and reactions in molecular biology can only be predicted based on observation. Evolution, or lack thereof, is about what happens in cells on the molecular biological level. I have read a fair amount about DNA and RNA, and the many proteins and amino acids that are present in cells; and still I come up with a virtual blank understanding. I will comment that molecular biology is a fascinating read and a more fascinating visual experience to see. (check resources for animation of cell division) A opposed to inorganic reactions where atoms act like little magnets being attracted and repelled, molecular biology in cell is like a factory with scores of independent workers carrying out independent tasks. What drives these proteins to act like intelligent operators? This is among the many probing questions to ask. Finally, studying rocks, fossils, and tree diagrams of species is the study of history not science and certainly not enlightening on how new species came into being.

All I can say is --Huh?

No codified dogma?? You must be kidding. Try searching the internet for "Books on Atheism" and see the repetitive dogma in the titles and the attacks on the belief in God. The first web page i looked at touted at least 20 books and a dozen more web links. And we dare not forget the all time reference guide to atheism, "The Origin of the Species" that helped Hitler justify his master race ambitions and his attempted genocide of the Jews.

i guess when something is very simple, it has to be repeated. As i said, atheists display all of the zeal in spreading their dogma as any religious advocate. I am not necessarily arguing semantics, but reality. the court has recognized that atheism should be treated as a religion because advocates want to study and practice behavior that is emblematic of their beliefs. (Get your "ducks" in a row.") With that said, i stand by Webster's third definition, again as previously stated. Religion is a "doctrine of custom accepted on faith."

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck........it's a duck.

I don't necessarily rely on the court system for decisions on subjective issues, but i submit that at least someone else believes atheism is a religion. (see the reference and below)

WND LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

"A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. "

I have looked over the entries below and think maybe we are beating a dead horse. Nothing entered in the "against" column has made any impact in my beliefs and am guessing vice-versa. Any more discussion would be tedius for me and we are getting close to just lobbing insults. i have enjoyed the discussion and i wish you all a Merry Christmas.

otm_shank
Interesting response, but we are still not communicating. You keep referencing natural selection, but you are wrong in asserting that natural selection applies to a one time event, i.e. the creation of the universe and its chemical and physical law. The predominant theory is that the universe was created once when time began, and it will continue to expand with never changing laws. So, you can throw your natural selection out the window. Addressing a couple of other points: (1) the Teapot thing - i am not asserting something i cannot see i am describing hard and concrete (pardon the pun) facts and looking for an answer. As i prefer to have answers or at least hypotheses. (2) Advance civilization without limestone - i believe that i have answered this. So if you don't like my, provide one of your own. My greater point lies in events that involve the limitations of our chemical building blocks. So, please spare me the "man would have found a different way" thing and also spare me the "you don't understand natural selection" thing as well. i think it is you that doesn't understand. Apparently you cannot discern the difference between natural selection and a string of consecutive events in a one time series.

Atheist display all of the same zeal and biases to support their position as do those of any "Religion." Also, the third definition in Webster's for religion is, "doctrine of custom accepted on faith." Like Blood Sweat and Tears said, "i swear there ain't no heaven, and I pray there ain't no Hell."

otm_shank

I'll have to give you credit for being a good arguer. I withhold comment on your debating skills. My premise is that with all of the obvious and mysterious coincidences that are built in to a one time creation of the universe there comes a point in improbability that a rational person will question whether or not this incredible balance of nature is all by accident. I built my position on providing a number of abnormalities or unique arrangements in chemical and physics laws that i don't think many people have pondered. You have argued well by either diminishing or ignoring altogether what i have said, and going on the offensive bysaying that i have to prove my position or you are right. Debates consist of more than just saying that the opposing side is wrong, but providing reasonable answers to support one's own side. I don't see it that your way. Since no proof can be provided by neither you nor me, i am looking for the most reasonable answer. If faith is believing in what one cannot see, then in my opinion it take more "faith" to believe that this all happened by accident than by an ID alternative.

otm_shank

Let me see if i have got this right. Since we do not know whether Celestial Katzwinkel is the origin of the unverse or who might have created Celestial Katzwinkel, then we have not recourse but to conclude that Celestial Katzwinkel does not exist. I would like to see a Boolean on that one.

otm_shank

It is apparent that you are afflicted by the same problem that many critics of ID suffer. You have very little understanding of the chemistry and the limitations of the chemical building blocks. Apparently you think that man can just come up with raw materials just out of necessity. There are no substitutes for calcium as derived from limestone as it is used in construction. Limestone as blocks and later as a source of cement was critical in taking man past one story single dwellings. Another little fact about limestone is that, all of the early hearths used to make any metal, be it copper, bronze, or iron were made in chiseled out limestone structures. I am among those that marvel at man's creativity, but there were and are certain raw materials that are needed to function. But let's not dwell on just limestone. Tell me about carbon and the rain cycle.

otm_shank

We are not communicating. I have asserted, many times, that natural selection does not apply to the laws of the universe. The universe was created only once with one set of laws. I have given a few binary events that had they not happened just the way they did, then an advanced society would not exist. One of the examples was that by some quirk of nature if the particular creatures that made limestone had never come into being, then advanced society would never have developed. i challenge you to describe any evolution of society into an advance stage without huge readily available quantities of limestone. This is not natural selection. There are only one set of building blocks with one set of properties.

Lastly, i ask again. How many coincidence does it take for you to question the game, and there is only one game in town.

Katzwinkel you are finally making sense. It is no coincidence at all that you appreciate the universe, the design is overwhelmingly fascinating and well tuned. Great job! My particular favorite, if you haven't guessed, is limestone. Great job. i do take umbrance, however, with the cancer thing. You could have fine tuned cell division a little better.

DClay

You suggest that man would have adapted and thrived had some of the abnormalities in nature turned out another way. Use your imagination and comment on a few that i have mentioned. Maybe start with carbon's covalent bond.

DClary

Good points, but none of them prove that creation is the product of chance. The best scientist in the world have been trying to reconcile the the forces of nature into a TOE and have gotten essentially nowhere. The biggest question of all is not the Big Bang, but what preceded the Big Bang. General relativity tells us that space just wasn't empty and the clock was ticking, but that there was no space and no time. So, if time did not exist, what caused it all to happen. Scientist do not have an answer, and when there is no answer, science tells us to make a hypothesis. That is what i have done, and to date, while this hypothesis remains unproven, there are also no others that have been proven. Remember, if this is a debate then provide something to support your position. I say my position cannot be disproven any more than yours can be proven. lastly, am I to understand that if you saw someone toss heads 10, 20, or 30 times in a row, you would not question that some no so obvious mechanism was present because that would reveal superstition?

Tell me if i am missing a point regarding this web site. My basis is the structure of debates. One side represents the for and the other the against. Debates don't start with one side being right and the other wrong. Then the debate is begun with the "wrong" proponent having "to provide direct, unequivocal evidence" of their position to win the debate. While some subjects have been ruled upon in a court of law or the court of public opinion, those are not definitive decisions that cannot be debated. The law once said women were not allowed to vote. Did that make the subject off limits to debate. Regarding the origin and design of the universe there no proof of either accident or intelligent. In my opinion this is a perfect topic to be on arguehow. As i have said before, a rational person can accept so many consecutive "heads" in coin tosses, and then they look for other explanations. What is your saturation limit on coincidences for a well structured universe? How many like coin tosses, 2, 10, 100, 10 to the 37th? By the way where is your "direct, unequivocal evidence" that there is no Intelligent Designer? I don't want opinion, i want facts?

Otm_shank
Thank you for finally making an argument, and you have made some good points. The facts are that I cannot prove that there is an intelligent designer, nor can you prove there is not. The burden is on neither one of us for the purpose of this discussion. What I am attempting to do is to put forth some ideas such that an open minded person might get some information from a source other than Wikipedia. In my profession as a chemical engineer and in my many discussions of this subject I have found that most people don’t know squat about chemistry or physics, let along quantum physics, general relativity or string theory. Furthermore, it is easy for most to dismiss ID because in their minds, what’s the big deal about the universe. Who among your associates have pondered the suspension of the forces of nature during the inflationary period after the Big Bang? Who has any appreciation that ice floating is a total anomaly in nature, and that life probably would not exist if this were not the case. Who appreciates the billions of years that single celled creatures were able to manufacturing limestone so that we could build buildings and roads? Who has even thought of the cycle of coordinated events that it took to put the billions of gallons of oil below ground? These are not small things that can be dismissed with the standard rhetoric that , “My imagination is too limited to think of alternatives.” I know the periodic table well, and there are not any alternatives, to limestone, carbon, water, et cetera. I am not proposing that we have a scientific discussion. I am suggesting that at some point after tossing a coin over and over again and it comes up heads every time, an intelligent and open minded person begins to think, “Maybe there is another force involved here.”

otm_shank

You seem to be hung up on agendas and labels. Let's discuss facts. Other than some gibberish about complexity not being a valid support for ID. No one has comments on the facts laid out in the argument. Complexity matters in the creation of everything. Also the fact that creation is a string of events, not a multiple roll of the dice. Tell me where my observations are wrong, i.e. where would man be without limestone, the rain cycle, covalent bonding in carbon. MAKE AN ARGUMENT! Don't tell me that these facts don't matter because of some"de facto headquarters at the Discovery Institute." I don't give a damn about them or what their agenda is. As I have said before, I think that it is called Intelligent Design because you have to be intelligent enough to comprehend chemistry and physics and the implications of how the laws of nature have been adjusted to allow for an advanced society.

I think that one reason she is such a target by the left is that they are in fear that young females might admire her. What's to admire, a woman of humble beginnings and while raising a family becomes mayor of her city and then governor. She is athletic, good looking and charismatic, and has chosen to be a leader not a victim. Heaven forbid that young women might want to follow in her footsteps. It is an effective strategy to attempt to ruin her image.

Give me a break. A goofy comment that asserts Intelligent Design is some recent development by a group of American creationist to circumvent court rulings gets 5 Creds. The concept of Intelligent Design is as old as man's appreciation of the wonders of nature, and the term "Intelligent Design" is documented at least back in the 1800's. Intelligent Design is getting a resurgence among scientists today because science is backing up the complexity of the universe. Let's see some challenges to the things that have been asserted, not just poppycock and ad hominem arguments.

#4 GAME BREAKERS…..There are many quirks of nature in which normal patterns of the laws of chemistry and physics are broken to facilitate a world that can support life and be inhabited by an advance society. I have listed a few below:
The suspension of the four forces of nature during the inflationary period just after the Big Bang so that the universe could be formed.

The balance of forces that allowed stars and then planets with a vast array of elements to be formed.

The unique bonding capability of the element carbon that allows it to form chains of atoms and complex molecules.

The fact that ice floats. - As far as I know ice is the only solid substance that is less dense than in its liquid form. If ice did not float, oceans would be substantially frozen. No planet with the water volume necessary to make life could sustain life.

Trees - The importance of tree cannot be understated. In addition to providing shelter and a source of energy that allowed society to advance, if it were not for hard wood, man could not have navigated the seas. Think of what society and technology would be like without ocean travel.

Limestone – Man may never have gotten past thatch huts without the remarkable deposits of limestone.
Rain – without the cycle of rain which is allowed by a very precise balance of density, freezing temperature, nucleating ability and air movement, what would the earth be like.

Groundwater – The earth in most places has surface material that allows water to seep through it, become filtered and purified of bacteria, and lie perched on bedrock just waiting to be tapped into. Without groundwater society could never have developed spanning areas away from freshwater rivers and lakes.

The magnetic poles – Without the magnetic poles, the earth would be bombarded by high energy x-rays and life would probably not be possible.

The precise balance of the densities of sand and water – the motion of waves builds beaches and separates the land masses from the oceans and lakes. Without this balance, the oceans very well could have eroded the entirety of land on the world except for young volcanic land masses. There would never have been the estuaries so necessary for the incubation of life.

The process of the generation of fossil fuel – without the extraordinary one time production of fuel, man could never have advanced. The trees would have been gone a long time ago.

Heavy elements – if stars were just a little different only the lighter elements would have been formed. How about a world without iron, chrome, silicon (no computers), uranium, lead etc.

Tides – the precise location and movement of the moon produces reasonable changes in the level of oceans and lakes that is just perfect for forming estuaries and circulating otherwise stagnant water bodies.

#3 ENERGY.... The production and storage of usable energy form for mankind is absolutely amazing. We have softwood, hardwood, peatmoss, softcoal, hardcoal, natural gas, oil, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion. What a menu to chose from depending on technology. Pick it off the ground and burn, dig it up and burn, drill for it and burn (distill it and burn better), and concentrate it with high technology and heat water. Each form has a great story, but let's take oil. Back in the early days of life, plants were growing at tremendous speeds and building land as they grew upon previous vegetation. All of the organic matter laying out in the sun would not help man down the road. So, just coincidentally, land moving forces came into play that buried this material all over the planet at depths of thousands of feet. It just so happened that at that depth there is immense pressure that just happens to turn leaves and such into oil. Where would we be without oil? You talk about pollution, you should read about life around London at the beginning of the industrial revolution when only wood and soft coal were available. Added to the soot and smoke were tons and tons of horse poop. Without fossil fuels our society would be stone age.

#2 FOOD AND SHELTER...... Food is pretty straight forward. Crops and animals happened. I'll save this discussion for another time. The Cambrian explosion, Irreducible complexity - pretty neat stuff. So let's move on to shelter. Where would we be without limestone? i venture to say we might still be nomadic. How does it happen that it is so accessible. Well after the seas lost the dissloved sulfur and it went into an acidic atmosphere and the acid rain helped soften and dissolve the hard surface, Small singled celled animals became a factory tat took calcium chloride out of the water and made ginormous deposits of limestone all over the earth that even a "cave"man could utilize, as in limestone caves. How convenient. The even more amazing part is that the designer asked the question how can i improve on this hard rock substance. Well He did. If you roast limestone you get this nice powder that when mixed with water makes cement. Is that cool or what? Where would we be without cement and the mortar to bind bricks together? Lastly did I mention trees. Of all the species of plants, trees dominate. Where would we be without trees and limestone. Even today without these our society could not flourish or even survive.

#1 - BEGINNING OF THE EARTH There have been many characteristic of the laws of nature that have played to our advantage so far. Let's move on to some more. We now at a place where we have a planet that might at some time in the future be capable of allowing for some sort of life. If you were a designer how would you provide resources for a civilIzation, In the early times, after some cooling, this new planet has a hard glassy crust of homogenized elements and has an abundance of highly acid water. Just going down a shopping list, there will have to be food, that even a slow caveman can find. There will have to be implements for shelter. There will have to be energy from the easily accessible and inefficient to the more efficient and harder to come by. Also, all of the building blocks for an advanced society such as materials for advanced construction and technology will have to be made available. None of these existed at the beginning. Tune in next time - these entries are getting too long.

it is funny, if a non-believer would find a toy car made out of Legos made in some remote area in darkest Africa, they would have no problem concluding that it is the product of an intelligent being. On the other hand they have no problem concluding the the incredible working design of this universe, tuned to perfection to allow intelligent beings to live and prosper was just a one time shot in the dark. Anyway, let's move on. So now we have moved from a bunch of Hydrogen atoms to big stars that are producing larger atoms. This is done, by the way, though a perfect balance of the forces that hold the sun together to manufacture other elements. Since these new elements cannot do anyone any good at the center of the stars, they must be dispersed. So conveniently, at some time the fuel becomes depleted and the star collapses on itself and blows up, scattering the new elements into space. These small particles are of just the right size and density to attract each other and coalesce into larger particles and ultimately to end up in other new stars to cook further or the make planets, all in perfect balance.

There is strong science that the creation of the universe was a one time deal, but let's move on. So, after the inflationary period where certain laws of physics were on temporary hold to allow the expansion of the universe what we had was a whole lot of hydrogen atoms and not much else. if you have ever tried to build anything, you know that hydrogen does not go a long way in construction. Over the next few billions of years the hydrogen combined due to the force of gravity to form large stars within which the fusion of atomic parts, and in particular the protons, neutrons and electrons, formed heavier elements from carbon and oxygen to iron and chromium. This just happens to be another very convenient coincidence that these particles could be glued together to form a complete set of chemical building blocks that just happen to be necessary for a complex society. These one time coincidences just keep adding up. By the way complexity is not subjective, but objective. It is measurable through probability in math and entropy in physics. ........... you should read the references. They are very inciteful.

Where do I start? There are literally an infinite number of reasons to advocate intelligent design. As a prologue, let me say that anyone who is a scientist, or anyone who has read either of Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" or James Burkes "The Day the Universe Change" knows that scientists cannot accept change. So if the standard theory does not include intelligent design, even strong evidence to the contrary will be rejected (for a while). While in past decades, so many parts of the universe appeared simple, today with our superior technology, we are just getting a hint of how the universe began. In my first entry on this subject i want to talk about the Big Bang. ----------There are four forces of nature, gravity, electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Since Einstein's paper on general relativity scientists have been attempting, unsuccessfully to come up with a theory uniting these forces, "TOE", the theory of everything. What they initially found was the firces' incompatibility during the first instance of the beginning of time, i.e the Big Bang. Strong evidence points to the forces being combined during the first 10 to the minus 37th of a second after the beginning. After that time the whole of the mass of the universe was about the size of softball. At the beginning of time it was a billion times smaller. So like a multistage rocket the four forces came into being after what is called the inflationary period. Once in place the balance of the forces, their respective proportions to each other, had to be precise to something on the order of 10 to the 23 power, or the universe would collapse or never be formed at all. Unlike some theories that rely on random chance in multiple events to have something "evolve." The universe began only one, yet the infinite coordination of the forces of nature just happened to have the precision to make it all happen? Come on, smell the coffee!

What does it say about the veracity of "Gore Speak" when the guru himself, Al Gore, makes up a scenario about polar melting and credits it as "new" information from one of the leading climate scientists. Don't you think that he would value the truth a little more than to recite such a bogus story at the year's biggest environmental forum? For the record, Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted Gore's claims.

i am also for courtesy flushing, but i have a different understanding. i have heard that courtesy flushing is a premature flush to eliminate the volatiles, especially when in a restroom with multiple toilets.

The LHC could be used to make anti-matter which could be stolen and used to destroy the Vatican, unless of course someone would grab the anti-matter at the last moment and take it high in the air in a helicopter and allow it to explode harmlessly.

When I make a decision that affects the safety and well being of my family I use a different thought process than when I am interacting with a set of my peers. For example, if I were planning a golf outing with some friends, I would compromise on where and what time we would have our outing. If, on the other hand, i was at a public park and a stranger beganhovering over my grandchild in a threatening manner, i would act quickly to make him leave. I would not consider the fact that we are in a public place and he has as much right to occupy the grounds as my child and I do. He has sovereignty, but I am charged to protect my family. That is my first priority.
With regard to Iran, Many people, including our President, believe that Iran poses a clear and present danger to the world. I do not fathom how someone would endorse Iran's nuclear program. I am interested to know what would be their response to the scenario put forth above, and whether or not they see parallelism between it and the Iran nuclear weapons scenario.

While deferring action in anticipation of Israel standing up to Iran is a convenient, albeit cowardly strategy, this is a tragic approach. Iran, whose boarders stretch the Persion Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, could easily close the 2 mile shipping lane in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact Iran has already theatened this action if they are attacked by anyone. Through the Straits flow 20 percent of oil traded worldwide. This would spell economic panic the world has yet to see other than during the world wars. A united world approach is needed.

The high temperature frying of foodstuffs containing the preservative sodium nitrite creates highly carcinogenic chemicals called nitrosamines. Crispy bacon can kill you!

I assume you mean "By whom." Be that as it may, sovereignty has been the key arguing point against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty both before and since its signing in 1968. If this is the basis of your dialectic then. we must take it to its limit. If all states and peoples are sovereign, then when it comes to nuclear weaponry, those in favor of sovereignty must also stand behind the premise that anyone with enough money should be able to buy nuclear weapons. Does that make any sense at all. The world community of 189 nations has spoken, and wisely so. Nuclear weaponry and its technology must be controlled. Hear, hear.