Autonomous

4 billion? Moron.

It isn't like you meant to imply anything by it. You just made a random observation, right?

Translation from Idiotese-"I cannot respond in an intelligent manner, so I'll post random nonsense."

I was really hoping you'd explain why uniqueness somehow disproves evolution, but oh well. Guess I'll just destroy yet another of your theories. Of course evolution doesn't explain the uniqueness of fingerprints. It has nothing to do with it. As others have said, it is because of sexual reproduction. Since you don't understand that, I'll explain further. In sexual reproduction, both parents provide genetic material for the offspring. Therefore, the offspring is identical to neither. Of course, this isn't a simple cut-and-paste job. My parents are both dark haired. Therefore, you would guess any children they produced would be dark haired as well. You would be correct for the first two, but my youngest brother is blond. This is because my mother carries genes from her father, who was blond and light-skinned. Because of the nature of genetics (I bet I'll have to explain this later) this gene skipped her to surface in her offspring. Because no one else shares my parents' unique genetic histories, no one else would produce children with identical fingerprints, irises, etc. They are unique precisely because of the randomness inherent in sexual reproduction, yet you are trying to use this uniqueness to prove a lack of randomness. This is why we laugh at you. Now I see that with this... ..you seem to think that evolution has a way of dumping traits with no survival value. It doesn't, which is why we carry around junk DNA. In fact, if evolution had dumped useless traits that might be an indicator of an intelligent designer.

Yes it is. Glad you could see it. It points out that you are simply making an unsupported assertion. You're in effect saying "Nature cannot create billions of unique individuals." Why not? Have you ever made rock candy? It forms through the crystallization process. By your logic every piece of rock candy made in the same way should be identical. But they aren't. No two snowflakes are alike, etc., etc. This doesn't show that God is behind each one, it shows that nature is not a xerox machine. Above the molecular level, can you give a single example of exact replication in nature? Even eukaryotes show some variation.

So you're saying that Jesus only washes away some sins?

So do you disagree with the actual post?

The Pope has a Ph.D. ?? Do you also know that as a teenager he belonged to the Hitler Youth, a young Nazi organization ?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you know that only one question mark is needed when asking a question?

Precisely why do you think that evolution would produce identical clones?

One more thing-my old pastor used to say that anyone using their faith to denigrate others is obviously more concerned with being right than righteous.

This is impressively trollish even by the high standards you've set for yourself. Only one exclamation point is needed, however. No it isn't. That is a whopper of an assumption. Not really. Anything starts with a 50/50 chance of existing if we are being incredibly generous. Factual evidence would increase the likelihood, yet each logically improbable characteristic would decrease it. Two assumptions here. First off, is faith a simple choice? There was a time in my life when I desperately wanted to believe. I wasn't capable of it. Second, why should we assume that nothing is lost by choosing a life of faith? Shouldn't some evidence be presented to show this? Finally, Pascal's Wager says nothing on which God is the correct one. What if following the wrong God is worse than not believing at all? If Allah exists but your God doesn't, you're still screwed. From what I understand of Islam, you'd be more screwed than I would. We discussed this not too long ago. Is your advanced age causing senility already?

I don't recall the Carter years-I was born in 1976. I should have said 'usually.' I'm not much of an economist. If it doesn't directly impact my business there is a good chance I don't know about it. My wife, however, has a degree in accounting. We (as a nation) pay a LOT on just the interest on the debt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that isn't a good thing. The fact that so much of our debt is owned by foreign investors is not a pleasing thought to me. I know the GOP used to want to balance the budget. I predict they'll take over again in 2008, and I'll give them yet another chance to do it. Like usual, I'd be very surprised if the government does anything before it becomes an emergency.

That was me. Didn't realize that my wife had cleared the cookies.

Unlike our wingnut members, I'll source my story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ I gotta say, I respect the man for saying this. He's going to offend a lot of the hardliners.

The Kalam Cosmological argument simply argues that the universe must have a cause. Implying said cause to be God is departing from the argument. Barrow's teleological application of the Strong anthropic principle is rejected by Brandon Carter, who is one of the first to formulate the principle. Nick Bostrom states quite eloquently that the anthropic principle simply warns against anthropic bias. Even if we accept that these arguments prove God's existence, neither of these prove that God exists in the particular permutation that you believe in. If the Muslims, Hindus, or pagans are right, the inalienable rights God gives to man change somewhat. I do not believe in dualism. Now while there are complex arguments put forth in support of a soul separate from the body, the most common one I hear is that it would be horrible if that were the case. Which in no way proves the soul to exist. Taoism and Buddhism both accept the existence of gods, but the deities are not really central to the core tentets of either religion. If their conceptions of morality are not based on god-given rights, are their moralities now insufficient? The idea that morality must be based on god-given rights has a fairly extensive set of problems. What if there is no god? How do you know that you have the correct set of rights?

No, that you can't produce one single fact and expect it to prove your point. The economy is chugging along as it always does-for now. The national debt is likely to hurt that in the long run-but both parties are to blame for that. Democrats haven't exactly been pushing for a balanced budget either.

I thought I wasn't in at all according to you?

I know I'm going to regret this, but what evidence? I'm actually fairly sure that the argument you are making isn'twhat it seems to be. You seem to be saying "it would really S**K if x didn't exist," which of course is not an argument for x actually existing at all. X being a philosophical basis for morality of course. What are you actually saying here?

If we're using the Dow as a measurement for successful economic policy a simple graph... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_miles...ustrial_Average ...would seem to show enormous growth during the Clinton administration and modest growth (except for 9/11 of course) since.

I really hate this sort of thing. Opposition is not treason. If we manage to win and establish peace in Iraq it will be solely by the courage of the American soldier. The planning for and management of the occupation has been incompetent. Treaty of Paris-September 1783. 7 years.

I have to add something-wherever he got the story was probably touting the budget deficit reduction as an actual accomplishment. Confusion between the terms 'deficit' and 'debt' makes it easy to try and gain political capital with stories like this. Anyone who knows much about business or politics knows about inflating projected budgets though.

Had he not tried to cover his rear I might agree with you. I think I've been fair on this topic-I provided sources. It is hard to feel too much pity for someone defending an absolutely wrong position with such venom as this:

You'd think the 'national security' guys would be frothing mad about the amount of economic power given to other countries by our inability to balance our budget. btw-link to the article for the Google-challenged: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Just in case... Wikipedia article on government debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt (please note the first sentence) and Wikipedia article on consumer debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_debt That should forestall any arguments.

No, I just don't know anyone over the age of 16 who uses 'LMAO.'