tcaudilllg, not only are you paranoid, you also need to chill out.
Since when did America become dangerous when they stuck a woman in charge of important affairs?
tcaudilllg, not only are you paranoid, you also need to chill out.
Since when did America become dangerous when they stuck a woman in charge of important affairs?
It isn't "a woman". It's that particular woman.Originally Posted by Ezra
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Precisely. That particular woman would do a good job. Most women (such as Hillary) would not.
ROFL.
I wouldn't vote for Palin ever for anything. Hillary I'd vote for, depending on who she was running against.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Removed at User Request
whenever I see the words Obama Biden, I get the letters mixed up in my mind and think "bid laden".
yikes!
anyway, so I understand that Stalin-Palin thing.
IEI-Fe 4w3
She might murder her kid if we don't, so let's do it for her so she doesn't hurt herself.
LOL @ you thinking it's OK to murder babies.
LOL @ you thinking you'll survive if Roe v. Wade is overturned or diminished.
rofl
I think I've deduced part of what the danger she poses is:
- she does not believe in personal growth (she made this point in her convention speech: "the presidency is not a voyage of self-discovery" -- that's contrary to the truth, because our world is always changing and we must change with it. If the president does not change it seems unlikely that the nation will effectively cope to change outside it and from within it). Because she does not grow, it behooves her to suppress growth in others. She desires a static, unchanging state of consciousness.
- because she does not accept personal growth, she does not accept the increased sense of self which accompanies this growth. She believes self comes at the expense of the whole, and at the expense of others. She equates the further attainment of individuation with selfishness, because she sees this growth as equating to perverse self-conduct. She knows that she cannot restrain people from increasing their self-awareness, therefore she intends to use the law to regulate the expression which arises in the context of this awareness. When people demand new rights, she wants to be in position to tell them "no".
In conclusion, she is an oppressive personality through and through. One more point: she recently suggested that if Russia moved against Georgia, the U.S. would have to go to war with Russia if Georgia were in NATO. She also recommended sanctions against Russia. It seems to me indicative of a constrained consciousness when a person can't recognize that there may be something going on beneath the surface when the supposed ally is stupid enough to attack the enemy. (even if your candidate is stupid enough to say "we're all Georgians now"). I know she's only been on the trail for a couple weeks... but she's 44 and the governor of a state: such stupidity is intolerable from someone with those credentials. I almost get the impression she thinks the Russians might invade Alaska itself at any time. (which is of course utterly ridiculous).
And did you notice what she said the Russians were after? OIL. I think she's got oil on the brain....
Isn't Palin the one who supported teaching creationism in schools?
Pure LOL.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Why is that funny?
Because not only did creationism NOT HAPPEN AT ALL, but the only place it should be taught in schools at all is for a day or two in a secondary-level world civ class and as a footnote to discussions of the history of Israel. (of course implying that it should be taught at the beginning of the semester only).
They're both theories, so both theories should be presented. You can't just say one possibility is a fact without considering others. That would be unscientific.
Creation myths that are repeatedly refuted by empirical evidence do not reflect the soundness of today's scientific understanding. Therefore, such claims should not be treated as 'science' within a public school system run by a state that separates church and state. The fact that this idea is lost on Palin shows she is misinformed about science and her own nation's history. This is definitely amusing to me in a disturbing sort of way.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
You would benefit from reading more about science, preferably before you get into a debate about it.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Her own nation's history? The nation was founded by beople who believed in God and creation.
Why do you assume that I don't know about science? I've taken classes on it and watched movies about it and read books about it. And I think I'm ready for a good debate. Are you?
A second look into the founding fathers' beliefs might change your perspective a little.
You believe that an ancient myth is as valid as 21st century science.Why do you assume that I don't know about science?
Oh hell, yeah.I've taken classes on it and watched movies about it and read books about it. And I think I'm ready for a good debate. Are you?
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
...anytime you'd like to start, my dear...
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
First, the flood. That is as much a part of creationism as Genesis 1:1. With all that water going around the Earth, the fossils would naturally get stuck in lumps wherever the water tossed them. That's why you usually find more than one type of bone in one place.
Secondly, the age of the Earth. If the Earth were billions of years old as evolution claims, it would be plenty of time for the oceans to completely wash away the land. The Earth would be flat.
Thirdly, please describe how you believe fossils are made.
Fossils have been found more than two miles below the Earth's surface. And obviously not all in the same layer. A layer a millimetre thick can take a million years to form, while a thick layer could be formed in a day. There is no single cataclysmic layer found the world over which supports the flood myth, however.
Evolution doesn't claim that the Earth is billions of years old. And the Earth's crust isn't static.
They are made when organisms end up in conditions favourable to making fossils.
Sure, the flood washed some fossils to a certain spot. Then it washed more on top of that, like waves at the beach.
According to my biology textbook, they claim the Earth is 4.2 billion years old. And I don't know what the second sentence means.
And babies cry when their vocal cords vibrate and air comes out of their mouth. Be more specific. Give an example.
I suspect ILIs performed the carbon dating of the earth. I wouldn't argue with them about it.
The Flood probably did occur; that ship didn't end up in Turkey because it was built on top of the mountain. Also, the Epic of Gilgamesh recalls its occurance. Scientists have speculated numerous theories of its occurance, most having to do with asteroid hits.
Macro evolution happens when you have a cataclysmic event wipe out most of a given population. Good traits and bad traits are both purged by the widespread elimination of individuals; both luck and suitability play into what does or doesn't survive. I personally suspect our ancestors performed an artificial event of such calibur on the Neanderthals, hunting them to extinction. When the flood hit, disorganized civilizations probably fell victim to it, those which were dominated by sociopathic rulers and perverse culture. There was probably so much dissent in those groups that cooperation on common ends was impossible. I suspect that subconscious types had visions about the flood before it happened, and that the leaders among them, like Noah, set about building vessels or fleeing to other lands. I don't think the flood covered the entire earth, but possibility Mesopotamia.
I don't like long paragraphs...too much information at once.
I'll argue with anyone who uses carbon dating. It doesn't work. They did carbon-14 dating on a live mollusk, and it was said to be 30,000 years.
Describe your opinion of "Neanderthals" and why they must have existed.
Because we have their bones. If they were the bones of MRDD sufferers, someone would have noticed by now. Neanderthals preceded modern man. Modern man (cro magna) exists due to a spontaneous change in the DNA of a Neanderthal egg (or sperm), perhaps during recombination or during teleosynethesis. This child proved far more intelligent than the neanderthals, and thus survived relatively easily. There is a question of how they reproduced; one possibility is that their genes masked the neanderthal genes and that we still have the neanderthal legacy within us. (DNA comparisons could probably prove this) Eventually a ******-type ENFj would appear from the descendents of this couple, and they would seek the purification of the human race.... I once met an ENFj who reminded me strongly of ******... she seemed to have passionate hatred for retards. I suspect this ancestral ENFj assembled an army to hunt down and destroy the neanderthals. Sociopathic ENFj sentiment may have been so universal that not just one, but many such persons may have felt it necessary to kill neanderthals wherever they hid: the first world-wide persecution effort. Also consider, other types would have reasons for exterminating an inferior subspecies of humans.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-16-2008 at 01:18 AM.
Palin says she plans to be busy as VP, saying she's going to root out all the corruption in government.
Now just how would she go about doing that... I wonder, I really do, because I'm pretty sure she doesn't know how, and for her to try would probably be disasterous. I suspect she'd try to purge liberals who leaned toward tradition, and traditionalists also. But I think she'd take a similarly ruthless hand toward the conservatives, because she clearly equates tradition with evil, or at least corruption. I probably do too, subconsciously, but I know that having a different -- or even opposing ideology to somebody does not make them bad people. I don't think Sarah Palin accepts that.
Unless there was more water altogether in the world that somehow got sucked into space - very unlikely I daresay - there is simply not enough water in the world to flood the whole planet. That's absurd.
What there is, is a collective memory of several European and Near East and Middle East cultures of something like the flood. The best bet is that it all related to the Black Sea. The Black Sea was a fresh water lake, not communicated with the Mediterranean, but at one point - people suggest around 8 thousand years ago - the Mediterranean broke over what is today the Bosphorus, creating the flood on the areas around the Black Sea.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
There are mountains that have been in stories going back thousands of years which have barely changed, and yet you seem to think that the Earth could suddenly be covered in two miles deep of deposits without people noticing.
Jericho is the oldest continuously lived settlement in the world, with deposits dating over 11,000 years. I believe they had to dig in excess of 30 metres down.
The flood would not have been able to put down fossils, mud, fossils, mud, fossils, mud, fossils, mud - the fossils would have been found in one layer, and the sediments would have been sorted according to size. The idea that the flood created alternating layers over two miles deep is absurd.
Volcanic ash can be traced to a specific volcano and to a specific eruption, and there are many layers of volcanic ash from all these different eruptions over billions of years and over many hundreds of metres.
Around 4.5 billion years old from the oldest rocks so far found. A study of DNA does show that the Earth must be billions of years old for the number of mutations which have occured over time to occur.
The second sentence means that the Earth's crust is in constant movement. E.g. mountains are being created and destroyed all the time (albeit over a very long period of time, from the perspective of humans). North America and Europe are moving apart at the rate of about 2 or 3 cm a year, which means that since the times of the first settlers at Jericho, they are as much as a third of a kilometre further apart.
A study of the sediment layers on both sides of the Atlantic shows that they must once have been united - of course, if all the sediments (fossils included) were laid down with the retreat of the Flood, the Flood must have happened many billions of years ago.
E.g. an organism might fall into a peat bog, and may not be allowed to rot. Over millions of years, intense pressure from sediments accumulating above the organism may preserve an imprint of the organism.
the discussion is irrelevant if you believe that God could have created the world already appearing to be billions of years old. Or whatever (he could have created it initially and then allowed it to evolve). I don't see the point of arguing about it or how scientific findings go against creationism at all. One day to God could be like a billion years to us. So what is the problem?
IEI-Fe 4w3
I haven't heard of this - but I have heard that the Aborigines know the precise locations (and have names) for mountains that have been underwater since the end of the last ice age.
Good grief. Are you fucking serious??
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Back to the subject, and because I thought it was funny:
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
The problem is that the Bible says 'day', and that if the Bible is the word of God, no human can just make an arbitrary distinction to intrepret it in ways that are convenient to them.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
First of all, you're going to have to provide a reference for that claim, because I'm calling bullshit. Secondly, what's the motivation behind carbon-dating a living organism? You KNOW when it lived. Is it to seek erroneous results, or to confirm that dates received are accurate? If the latter, any actual 'scientist' would know that carbon-dating post ~1950 is going to be useless on account of all the anomalous C14 injected into the atmosphere when humankind starting expirementing with nuclear weapons.
In fact, a quick google search found a paper on the subject: "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells", M L Keith and G M Anderson, Science, vol 141, pp 634-637 (1963). Now how fucking hard was that?
That said, they also did carbon-dating on the eruption of Pompeii and placed the date within several years of the historical figure. They also cross-checked with K-Ar dating and came out with the same value.
Of course, it should come as no surprise that creationists are typically oblivious when it comes to any form of radiometric dating. Carbon-dating is only used by archeologists and Quaternary geologists to date things within the past 50,000 years (75,000 at the uppermost limit). To date anything older than the Quaternary (> 95% of the Earth's history), geologists use U/Pb, K/Ar, and Rb/Sr dating. There are other methods as well, though I won't get into them as at this stage in the game I do not understand yet how they work.
Plotting up Rb/Sr ratios, for example, one can use the 'isochron' method which is a really powerful tool that actually self-corrects lost atoms in an open system, and can identify more than one metamorphic event. These three methods used together can refine dates to a precision +/- 1 million years at an age of over 3 Ga.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Ah, the ubiquitous "they". Who are these "they" people?They did carbon-14 dating on a live mollusk, and it was said to be 30,000 years.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Carbon 14 dating is useful for dating things which once lived, because almost all life forms have to take it in to their bodies. Rocks don't contain Carbon 14 because it has a short half-life of 'only' a few thousand years.
But in the case of sealife, this can be problematic. If molluscs filter sediments for food at the bottom of the sea, they get a higher concentration of C14 than would be natural for an organism living on land. The small size of molluscs excaberates the problem compared to larger organisms.
It's actually 4.55-4.6 Ga, based on a few lines of evidence:
A) 4.2 Ga rock in the Acasta Gneiss, in NWT, Canada; evidence of the existence of a continental craton in the Hadean (4.6-3.8 Ga).
B) 4.4 Ga Zircon grains in Archean (3.8-2.5 Ga) sediment found in Austraila; the implication of which the Earth had cooled long enough for the oceanic crust to form, and partial melting of the lithosphere to allow the less-dense continental crust to form, to rise above sea level, to be weathered and then deposited.
C) 4.6 Ga dates on meteorites; consistant with the model of the formation of our solar system, and protoplanetary disk from which the Earth formed.
D) > 4.0 Ga rock in the Lunar highlands; the composition, size, and placement of the Moon, as well as its tidal interaction with the Earth shows that the likeliest origin of it is from the Earth.
1) The Moon lacks an iron-nickel core, and is comprised mostly of mafic/ultramafic material - Mg, Fe, Ca-rich - which is consistent with the Earth's mantle. High-field-strength and large-ion-lithophile element ratios are consistent between the two to a degree that strongly suggests there is a link.
2) There are four inner rocky planets in our solar system, only Earth has such a satellite.
3) The Moon is in a relatively stable orbit. Unlike captured satellites such as those orbiting Mars, the Moon is not in a declining orbit. This, along with the fact that the Moon lacks a core (meaning it's unlikely it accreted in isolation like the planets), and that it's extremely unlikely the Earth could have captured the Moon in the first place given their relative sizes, the best explanation is that the Moon comes from the collision of the Earth with a Mars-sized object in the early solar system.
The point? This event happened prior to at least 100 Ma before 4.4 Ga, which is consistent with the idea of a 4.6 Ga Earth.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
For all Abbie claims to have read about science, she is likely unfamiliar with the concept of bioaccumulation. And apparently, so too are her unreferenced 'scientists'.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
DiscoJoe seems to come to more conclusions in this post regarding political issues than Obama has in his entire campaign.
Yes, that is what an alliance is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
