Camouflage G-String

unlikely...but always possible

Well it is clear and around 60 degrees out. If I remember before i go to sleep I have been planning on checking it out.

Physicists and scientists are not automatons they are human. They have beliefs. Although they are open to well supported countering belief systems many yes many believe in the big bang theory. Scientists have many beliefs and trying to say they do not is just silly.

Without beliefs there would be no science. If I believe differently than someone else I am going to create an experiment to support my beliefs. Differing belief systems is what drives science to question each other.

Men and women are genetically different. Men have DNA that women do not. They are not equal. They both have different strengths and weaknesses. But their is also variation within each of the sex's. Some men are stronger, some are weaker. As with women their is variation within the sex.

Generally men are better at spatial reasoning, and men have athletic advantages (increased size, and muscle). Women are better at handling multiple tasks, and women are more socially intelligent recognizing many more distinct emotions than a man.

In reality most all jobs are easy and many can be performed by a monkey. So the differences between the sex's are less significant than the variations within a single sex. A smart women is better than a stupid man. Period.

My personnel experience is men are better suited for positions of command leadership, but women are better at staffing leadership.

evidence is concrete and not subjective. What that evidence proves or disproves is subjective.

Most often it all depends how you frame your belief or theory. The better you frame it the less arguable it is. Much like a good lawyer.

"If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."

well said samgem

Just as the ontological argument fails so does any argument to show god does not exist.

Nope it is logical. I am not abusing this word. The premise is that there is something to be gained be believing and nothing to be lost. If this holds true then yes it is logical. Yes this is the proper use of logic because it is a logical argument.



No you cannot prove they exist or disprove, but unlike your examples the existence of god is something that has seen much scholarly philosophical debate (ontological argument for one). Either choice has been determined valid.




I do not think it cowardly or dishonest if you are forward with your reasoning. It is a place to start. I like the idea of having a spirit and a god, but I have no proof for it. This gives me a logical stand point for pursuing religion. Do I know definitively if god exists..No, but I do pray, and I do ask god to help me to know him/her more.

I also believe that the reason why religions work well if there is no god is because they represent basic truths that apply to all humans. By following them you do become a better person.

Well there is no proof in spirit I agree, but I disagree that it is not logical to believe.

If you are hiking in the wilderness from one destination to another. When you are around the halfway point you encounter a blizzard. Do you go back or go forward? In this situation either choice is logical.

You can not prove nor disprove the existence of a spirit or god. So either choice is equally logical.

If no god exists then we are all just destined to be worm food so choosing either choice has no effect, but If there is a god and if believing in him/her causes you to go to heaven instead of hell well there is an effect.

So by my standards it is logical to believe because if you are wrong it will not hurt you, but if you are right then you get to go to heaven.

Yes,

Also Non-random mating, migration, and mutation.

The only context where a joke like that would be considered a joke or funny is..... well not sure.

This thread is silly. Why do people argue about darwin when they no nothing about him or his theory. He was a man of god. He never denounced his theory that is just a rumor.

Get with it people. Regardless of your beliefs it always seems that the people who know the littlest about evolution and darwin tend to have the biggest issues with it.

I think you people are a few tacos short of a platter

vaccines are good for you. Period. A very small number of society will have adverse effects, but that is no different than taking Tylenol. Your body is full of chemicals. Many bad that you get through your food and plastics. Formaldehyde is bad for you, but only in large quantities. Nutrasweet breaks down into formaldehyde in your body but you would have to drink 4 liters or more of diet coke per day for it to be harmful.

All human embryos have large tails. At a point during our embryonic development our tail is reabsorbed. Sometimes it is not entirely absorbed and a small true tail exists at birth. There are no bones, cartilage, or notochord; but there is muscles and nervous tissue. We have something just as good as a tail (IMO better). We have butts. :). Other primates do not. Here is a link to an interesting article on the subject.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r291/
missladydoyle/tail0zy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://shkrobius.
blogspot.com/2007/10/why-don-we-have-tails.html&usg=__YisJA_U9jxlQ3shtJCkC9ugYKL8=&h=427
&w=600&sz=30&hl=en&start=6&itbs=1&tbnid=9CQgwT7U458IrM:
&tbnh=96&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhuman%2Bembryo%2Btail
%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Anyway... Yes we used to have tails. Were we still classifiable as a human when we did...No

Many of you guys need to learn the basics about evolution because many of you are way off. Natural selection is only one part of evolution. You could completely remove it and animals would still evolve.

Also the theory of evolution does not have anything to do with humans evolving from apes. It only says that allele frequencies in populations change over time.

The apes to humans thing is not even darwin. If you take what we know from evolution and apply it to humans. Then you realize that we and apes share a recent common ancestor.

As for pigs. That is just stupid. A pig is more closely related to a Whale than it is to a human. Here is a link to the genetic tree of life showing the branch for mamalia.

http://tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997

I agree artificial selection applied to humans in the future will be very interesting for our evolution.

Those great minds are a result of variation. They represent the very upper echelon of the pendulum swing for human intelligence. They are rare. As for evolution. I cannot think of any particular selection pressure that would cause those with higher intellects to reproduce more.

Humans continue to evolve but we are drifting somewhat randomly. There is not any strong selection pressures for us. Evolution takes 5 things:

Nonrandom mating
Migration
Genetic Drift
Natural Selection
Mutation


A worm in the dirt has been evolving for billions of years. Evolution does not always drive toward more complexity or higher intelligence.

Nope I am not dead wrong.

Agnostic comes from gnostic which means possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things. Used to refer to a cult of Christians called the gnostics. Gnostic comes from the greek word gnosis which means knowledge. The prefix "a" is used with greek words and means without, no, or absence.

So when I say the literal translation of agnostic means without knowledge I am dead right.

But thanks for being an *** about it and take care.

dont think you need a valid argument to use a word differently, but if you are not using the common definition you should define what definition you are using.