Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
And then claim that "Even Darwin himself called the eye irreducibly complex". Ignoring the very next sentence, where he overrides the first.To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
"seems" without an extra caveat of some kind gives you the impression that it is. I think that is the problem here, the creationists have removed the caveat to change the meaning of his writing.I really don't see the difficulty even when he is taken out of context, the key word there is "seems". Darwin's simply stating that it seems difficult to believe that something as complicated as an eye formed by random chance. For people to claim that he said the eye is irreducibly complex is pretty much failure of reading comprehension.
It does though, that's the whole point. If you're arrested for suspected terrorism, the president can rule that you be detained without trial, -even- if you are a citizen. I wouldn't care if this wasn't the case... but it is. This bill will really make it okay for the government to nab people in the middle of the night with no explanation and no expectation of release. Ever. Did he close Guantanamo? Nope. Still open, despite his promise to close it during his first year. And why is it still open? To house all these peoples that can now be kidnapped. So they can be tortured. Despite they having done nothing wrong, presumably.It's not that it allows the president to detain civilians without trial. But it sets a legal precedent which might lead to that type of ruling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...act-ndaa-obama-detainee-policy_n_1147878.html
Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.
...
The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.
Make him look weak? A large portion of the people against this part of the bill were bipartisan! Republicans and democrats side by side voicing the same concerns. He's gotta think before doing this. He's gotta sign it, obviously, the Defense needs a Budget, but c'mon, at least ensure the American People that his signing statement will nullify this ridiculous portion that basically turns the US into China.This close to election year he can't exactly veto this as it'll make him look weak. (then again when you kill BinLadin can you really be called weak?)
If enough people write letters to him, it might.Why is your wife writing a letter to him though? I doubt that will achieve anything.
You don't belong to some organized religion though, I'm talking about people who identify with a religion but are very liberal with their belief. What I mean by progress again look at the catholic church 100 years ago it's a lot more rational today than it was then. That's what I mean by progress, rather than ignoring evidence they accept it. Granted they still are a bit stubborn in other aspects but again they have progressed a little.I hate when people say invisible man in the sky, it's like saying evolution says we evolved from chimps.
I'm not sure what you mean by religious progress though.
Most atheists don't have a problem with theists such as myself, who aren't extremists and aren't trying to halt the development of science.
I don't mean societal progress I mean progress within that religion, ideas evolve and religion is no different, however I feel when militant Atheism simple shuns people whom have faith but that faith doesn't hinder their rational judgement I feel that shunning is very harmful.My supervisor's father was a militant atheist. He banned talk of religion and didn't allow him to associate with theists until he was 18, yet he believed in God the entire time, so in that sense it may not halt progress.
If anything, atheism advances progress. Civilisation is learning mire reasons to not be religious, so in turn religion has to become more philosophical and appealing to get followers.
What does he plan on making his signing statements?My wife is writing a strongly worded letter to President Obama concerning this defense funding bill. I guess it takes some longer than others for the reality of it to hit home, but this really is the absolute worst piece of legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime, and the president -I- supported and voted for, is on board. W.T.F. Is he just stupid? I can't accept that he is... he HAS to know the implications of what this bill will mean if passed.
Supposedly he's signing it with a "signing statement."
Obama Will Issue Signing Statement With NDAA Detention Rules
But will it be enough? Can we trust even this? I'm not as queasy as I was when I first learned we were invading Iraq after 9/11 ... that day I threw up from the stress of grief. But this is darn close.
I mean, how CAN he append his approval? What can he sign saying that'll make it okay for us to sleep at night? He's backed himself into a corner, and he knows it, this is just buying him time for him to figure out a way to break it to everyone "yeah, ok, this will make it okay to disappear people, and I realize I'll be a 1-term president now, but just shut your mouth about it or you may be branded a terrorist and vanish."
****in' hell.
That's quite interesting actually. If his signing statement is right than maybe it's not too bad. Somehow, I don't think it will be though.What does he plan on making his signing statements?
Signing statements have the effective force of law because of the exectutive branch's ability to execute laws, and as such can be unconstitutional similarly to laws themselves.
"You've had better"First behaviorist to second behaviorist just after making love, "It was great for you, how was it for me?"
robertbieber said:"Half" is giving him way too much credit. My favorite analogy for Ron Paul is the broken clock. A broken clock, as we all know, is right twice a day. What most people don't consider is that a broken clock is not only right twice a day, it's precisely right twice a day. A perfectly functional clock, meanwhile, may be slightly off and therefore never tell the exactly correct time, but any fool could tell that it's far more useful.
Now imagine that you stumble upon the broken clock at the exact time that it's correct. Maybe you come across it a little before its correct time, and observe it until just a little afterward. From that perspective, the broken clock looks pretty doggone accurate. If you don't sit around the rest of the day watching it, you'll see a much lower cumulative error arising from the broken clock than the functional-but-slightly-off clock, and may very well find yourself inclined to judge it more useful than the working clock.
Of course, the reality of the situation is that you've now placed your faith in a broken clock, and this is exactly the mistake that "progressive" Ron Paul supporters make. Just like the broken clock, Ron Paul tells the same time whenever you ask him: "Government intervention bad, free market interactions good." And if you ask him at the right time, say, in a discussion of foreign interventionism or drug prohibition, you might say to yourself "Well I'll be darned, all those other clocks are a little off, but this clock is exactly right. It must be vastly superior!"
The problem, of course, comes when you decide to check the time at any other point in the day. When you want to know how we're going to provide for our poor and our elderly and our sick, or how we're going to keep massive corporations from exploiting a labor surplus to make wage slaves of us all, or how we're going to protect our environment from the negative externalities of the free market, or how we're going to assure equal rights for minorities, you get back the same answer, an age-old answer that has been tried and found sorely wanting.
This is the point where most progressively minded people realize that what they're looking at is a broken clock and adjust their positions accordingly. Unfortunately, a select few, upon observing that their preferred clock is not accurately reflecting the time of day, will reconcile the difference not by adjusting their belief about the clock's veracity to fit reality, but by adjusting their beliefs about the current time of day to fit the clock. And from this mistake comes Ron Paul's enthusiastic but sadly misguided "progressive" Internet following.
Uh, YES? You obviously don't live in the deep south. No one will admit it right away, but if business owners really could run their businesses however they wanted, ha! No handicapped parking. No blacks. On and on and on.And do you honestly think such a store would prosper compared to one that allowed all people to shop?
Maybe it would fail somewhere like New England or California, but in the deep south? Probably would keep itself above water.And do you honestly think such a store would prosper compared to one that allowed all people to shop?
It's a matter of discrimination. Let's not blow this out of context.I do think people should have the right to behave like idiots, so long as they don't violate someone else's rights. You might disagree with that, but it's not complete insanity like you implied. Anyway, let me take the opposite train of thought to its logical conclusion. You say the government has a right to tell people what they should do if that's clearly better than the alternative? Tell me, what would you think if a Christian was to become president and act on that idea?
Hey! Great news! People are smart! I never knew...I'm always rather annoyed at the "The government is needed to stop corrupt corporations" angle, because quite frankly, they do the opposite. Using the (large? Sometimes I wonder...) assumption that not quite everybody is an absolute moron, if a corporation is being dishonest, the people will instead do business with an honest competitor, thus leading to the dishonest one (same with incompetent ones) to go out of business.
Funny... None of those four things should be the government's business, according to you. The Fed is not a government organization, in case you weren't paying attention. .And if you think I'm making up ridiculous scenarios with my theory crafting, I invite you to investigate the connection between the banks, the federal reserve, inflation, and the constantly failing economy.