MrsRational

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second? I only know of one... and it only holds about 50 rounds at most. an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit..... and that's nearly impossible to get. Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun...... and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly. I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other type weapons. Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said. Or other type weapons covers a lot..... are you saying that I shouldn't have guns at all? I corrected my post.

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm This is either a fake or more of an alien than human left that foot print. There are so many issues with that footprint it is not even funny Oh my, if it shows men and dino's together it must be fake.... you're no better than the smithsonian It's fake because it's fake: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paluxy_River_tracks

Yes because if this had been a heterosexual couple the ruling would have been different. (I wish there was an icon for rolling ones eyes) Had the guy gone through a clinic like the law requires he wouldn't be in this mess. Not the same thing. The thing about heterosexual couples is that one of them is a man and he would have been responsible for the payment and upbringing of the child, and not the donor. With Lesbians reproduction is impossible without a donor, so a court has to decide whether or not it was a sperm donation or the result of sexual activity between the man and one of the women, and even if it wasn't, the sperm donation would be invalid if it didn't go through the right medical channels. You're comparing apples to oranges. In terms of paternity laws it doesn't matter if a baby is the result of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife or two lesbians and a man with a chemistry set. There are certain ways to donate your sperm without having to worry about paternity, and these women's sexual orientation is irrelevant to that process.

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second? I only know of one... and it only holds about 50 rounds at most. an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit..... and that's nearly impossible to get. Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun...... and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly. I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other such types of weapons. Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said.

Yes because if this had been a heterosexual couple the ruling would have been different. Had the guy gone through a clinic like the law requires he wouldn't be in this mess.

A little off topic but for some reason I find the header very amusing, implying 1$ was added to the budget. "One dollar? This is an outrage!" (Shakes fist)

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here. 1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun). 2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

It doesn't matter how clearly you explain why he is wrong or how much better qualified in a subject you are than he is. "Creationists" will continue to deny deny deny and imply that science is on on some conspiracy against the "truth". When I was taking my masters in biology I would often be accosted by the campus crusade for Christ types, and I learned that trying to reason with them is akin to bashing my head into a wall. Creationism is really about denial, with the people on top making huge sums of money pandering to the uneducated and scientifically illiterate. Rational, I agree with most of your post but was confused at the end. On these threads, I see many well educated and scientifically literate people, so did you mean "in general?" Also who is making the huge sums of money you were referencing? Thanks. People such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and others fuel denial of evolution and young earth creationism. They make a fortune in the process selling junk science books, DVDs and lecturing.

It doesn't matter how clearly you explain why he is wrong or how much better qualified in a subject you are than he is. "Creationists" will continue to deny deny deny and imply that science is on on some conspiracy against the "truth". When I was taking my masters in biology I would often be accosted by the campus crusade for Christ types, and I learned that trying to reason with them is akin to bashing my head into a wall. Creationism is really about denial, with the people on top making huge sums of money pandering to the uneducated and scientifically illiterate.

The great thing about fantasy conversations is they always go our way.

I am a biologist and I know exactly what birth control does. The morning after pill may stop a fertilized egg from implanting, but prescription birth control largely functions by preventing fertilization in the first place. If that is considered abortion than one may as well consider self gratification abortion as well. It is true that in some instances birth control pills CAN act in the manner you describe but that is not how they are intended to function. Birth control pills also treat/prevent: Depression Menstrual pain Cancer Cysts As hormone replacement But again, this is really about attacking Obama and the AFA. If Obama came out with a health care plan that cost you one cent a year, covered everything and made insurance companies wealthier people here would still be opposed to it. My pharmacist license trumps your biologist degree lol. It may work largely that other way, but it still works at times as I stated it does. Which is an offense to a Christian, and in this case a catholic nun. Routine cancer treatments can cause an abortion. Many medical treatments can cause an abortion. May as well have those excluded "on religious grounds" also.

I am a biologist and I know exactly what birth control does. The morning after pill may stop a fertilized egg from implanting, but prescription birth control largely functions by preventing fertilization in the first place. If that is considered abortion than one may as well consider self gratification abortion as well. It is true that in some instances birth control pills CAN act in the manner you describe but that is not how they are intended to function. Birth control pills also treat/prevent: Depression Menstrual pain Cancer Cysts As hormone replacement But again, this is really about attacking Obama and the AFA. If Obama came out with a health care plan that cost you one cent a year, covered everything and made insurance companies wealthier people here would still be opposed to it.

None of those countries you list outside of China have the power to affect the world as a whole, they have limited control over their local region but have no real global power. How many of those countries you list have have invaded sovereign nations in the last decade or two? It matter not which country was to disappear, there would still not be global peace, there has never been global peace and there will not be till Jesus comes back again. I know it is hard to accept, but there is nothing special about the US, we are a country ran by lost people who look out for their own interest first and foremost. Actually, we are a special country. We have more freedoms than any other nation, people have always immigrated to the US for a better life and more opportunity. We have done more to support more nations in times of natural disaster. We lead the world in humanitarianism. We have given more to the world than we have received from anyone. We have been an immense blessing to the world. We have sent out more missionaries than any other nation and the gospel has penetrated more nations due to the Christian community in the United States and the reason we have had such a robust Christian community able to do amazing things for the Lord is because of the immense amount of freedom that we enjoy which no one else in the world enjoys. We are not a perfect nation, but we are the best one. You should spend some time in the Urkraine, or Siberia, or an Islamic nation, or Bangledesh or Eastern Europe. You should spend some time in the Congo or Kenya or down in South America and you will find just how much you would appreciate the expectionalism of the United States and why we are the greatest nation the world has ever known. For each of those good things you list one can add a just as bad thing. We do what we do out of our own best interest, not due to any sort of "goodness. I will assume since you suggest it that you have been to Urkraine, and Siberia, and some Islamic nations, and Bangledesh and Eastern Europe? Is that correct? As for who has more freedoms, according to the very conservative Heritage Foundation we are 10th best. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking We're number six! We're number six! (Doesn't have much of a ring to it).

She made a poor decision driven by idealism but she did not conspire to harm anyone.

Too bad constant insults don't trump scientific evidence.

Wasting money is illegal? On what planet? Sorry, I just don't get your reasoning here. By law a publicly traded company must maximize profits. This protects investors (in theory) from fool hardy spending and decision making. If a company's board of directors were to throw money away or purposely devalue a product, they would be voted out by shareholders and open themselves to civil action. Therefore the idea that they are deliberately sabotaging Duck Dynasty or only put them on the air to humiliate Christians is ridiculous.

The Idea that A&E would waste millions of dollars just to ridicule Christians is absurd. They are a publicly traded company and wasting money is not only a firing offense but it is also illegal.

Quote mining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html I'm not interested in whatever laundry list of quotes you dredge up from creationist websites. They are all quote mined which is extremely dishonest. I did not call you lazy, I said even the laziest of searches would lead to the information you "requested". Nor did I say you were dishonest or a false witness...I said quote mining is dishonest and false witness. I believe you just never bothered to verify the veracity or context of those statements which is a very bad thing but certainly not anything malicious on your part. If you scroll up and read where I posted your "quote" from Franklin Harold, the entire quote in context means something totally different. Here are some quote mines from you: "...these scholars are quacks..." "...I'm uneducated, lazy and a fraud..." "...my claims are unwarranted and baseless..." "...I'm lazy..." You DID write those words...would you be happy with me citing that to others? Did I present them in an honest way that represents what you were saying? That is what quote mining is and why it is false witness and so dishonest. Don't do it anymore, and start doing your research before you repeat something you read on AiG or some other such website. Claiming everything is a kind and shrugging when asked to provide a specific example is not very impressive. How do you know something is still the same "kind" if you don't even know what a kind is? You can't claim something as fact and then say "I dunno" when asked for a clarification. Speciation is when an organism is no longer able to breed with it's ancestor...i.e. "turning into another creature". "Macro" evolution is merely the compounded effects of "micro" evolution and are not separate processes. While it is true that many evolutionary scientists use the term, I dislike the way they have been distorted by creationists and therefore avoid using those words when talking in a non-scientific context. Your claims about "evolutionists" trying to disprove God ARE unwarranted and baseless because I can disprove them in two seconds...I am a Christian. So are many other people in my field which you would also know if you bothered to do your research. When you constantly misunderstand speciation, atomic theory and the simplest aspects of biology it is reasonable to conclude you don't know what you're talking about. If you respond to me with more mined quotes I will not answer you, you will have to do your own thinking.

You are 100% right...they have the right to do whatever they wish with their network and you have the right to not watch it. I think he answered the question in a stupid way but I don't think he should be fired either.

I didn't know people had a constitutional right to be on television.

Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is. No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific. I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak. Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips. It took me exactly three seconds to look up evolution + practical applications to find detailed lists and real world applications. We use evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development, in order to predict needed cures and treatments for pharmaceutical companies. Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true, and as I said previously the term means nothing to biologists. Secondly "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working for some unified cause. Thirdly, evolution is not working towards some goal...sometimes things get more complex and sometimes less. Once again "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working together for a common goal. Scientists come from hundreds of unique cultural and religious backgrounds all over the world. What does Jefferson have to do with this discussion? I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor. There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not and trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself. You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing. It's called changing opinions and views based on new and better data, something good scientist do. Micro/macro are creationists terms that mean nothing to me or any reputable biologist, no more than "kind" does. I gave you not one but two examples of speciation and you chose to ignore them, so I'm not going to waste time trying to find more. It has been observed, sometimes in less than 50 years regardless of your ability to look them up. You also didn't answer my question...what is a "kind"? I want to know an example of a "kind" of animal, not a re-statement of what you think a kind means. The world is full of quacks, science is not immune. None of these people have published any data or research to support their views. Lol speciation is a major component of what evolution is. At least use Google to look up what things mean man. Peppered moths are an example of natural selection. Here is the quote in context: Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining? It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness. And it IS false witness because in order to mine the quote you have to read everything in context first. Is their position so bad they have to engage in this dishonesty? I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God. I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues, having got into our fields because we want to ease suffering via medical research. The head of the human genome project is an evangelical Christian, Francis Collins. The idea that we are trying to disprove God is wrongheaded and laughable.

Um...I don't know how to put it any simpler? You lack even basic knowledge of the aforementioned subjects. I didn't "fail" to mention them...The nucleus and proton ARE sub-atomic particles. See my answer to the above question. (I put a wide number of fields under these heading for sake of brevity) - Medical research - Wildlife farming and management - Statistics - Engineering Since you already deny the reality of evolution, you certainly will not accept any of the predictions based on it. If you have even a high school level of understanding on the subject you would know the answer to this. Over time organisms will change according to environmental pressures. There is no such thing as a "kind" and the word has no meaning whatsoever in biology. Creationists use this word because evolution on smaller scales have been documented and can no longer be denied. Creationists therefore decided to claim animals can change as long as they don't go past some undefined magic barrier. So you tell me...what exactly is a "kind"? See my above answer. There is only one theory of evolution. While there might be discussions and debates about the exact mechanization in which evolution occurs, there are no reputable biologists on earth who denies the theory. Speciation in plants and animals have been observed and documented. The Faeroe Island house mouse (And in only 250 years!) and the Goatsbeard flower are two that jump from memory, (and a Google confirmation). We have also observed smaller changes in moths and insects that were isolated from their parent gene pool.

Okay so twice...my point is still valid.

"Evolution and cosmology and other "disciplines" work in reverse." Well that's not Science or more specifically, Empirical/Operational Science. More in the realm of Forensic and Historical Science. "this Creator was behind the formation of the first biological molecules" Lets save this for another time "But I have no proof or evidence to offer. It is a statement of faith." Yes, but it's not Blind Faith. Again...Back to the 2 Choices. Along with Whole Counsel of GOD Including all 1800 or so Prophecies and Jesus Christ in the Flesh. Pretty Powerful IMHO. Merry Christmas to you and yours sir For a person who claims to love biology, physics and genetics you display little knowledge of their foundations. - An atom contains a nucleus, electrons, protons and neutrons. Electrons are negatively charged, protons are positively charged. - A molecule is two atoms that are chemically bound together. Since the theory of evolution is used in a variety of fields and has predictive capability, it goes a bit beyond a masquerade. I have personally created strains of bacteria and bred several fruit fly variations based on the theory of evolution. No reputable biologist in the world denies evolution is a reality. You also fail to understand the scientific method: Start with a question Conduct Research Formulate a hypothesis Test Your Hypothesis via experimentation Analyze data and draw your conclusions Publish your results

It was light this year here as well, and I do not live in the U.S. nor is Canada's economy poor. I hope it is because people are putting more thought into this holiday and what it is supposed to really be about.