tvashtarkatena

That was spur of the moment

How many rest marks does it take to make a kevbone?

I mean the PooPoo Channel. Sorry.

Women? This is the Puppy Channel.

Mr. Gyros on 85th & Greenwood. Check it.

bottomless slobber at 130 dB

Futility? What about Pho? Now Iraq, that's pointless. I can already get shwarma right down the street. Another difference: In Vietnam we would have had to kill about a million NVA and VC with our half a million troops, 2 to 1, to 'win'. In Iraq, that ratio is now about 50 to 1. Good luck with that, Georgie boy.

Spray N Wash: $3.95 at Payless

Satori. No words.

I'd strangle a puppy for a box of Bugles right now.

or take a dump. Four words.

Clearly, this event was a turning point...

Oh my god, you're right. I fell right into their trap. I am such an asshole. Senior Gonzalez, take me to Cuba.

May I suggest certain cheeses to recalibrate your olfactory intuition?

The past is observable. All organisms have a readable genetic code that reveals their evolutionary story. We have DNA samples from many prehistoric animals, and from one of our precursors, the neanderthals. It is not necessary to directly observe the past by time travel to unravel this code and how it changes over time through evolution, just as it is not necessary to speak directly with a dead philosopher to understand his written ideas. Your definition of 'laboratory' is a bit too narrow. The world, even the universe, is also a laboratory. Cosmologists cannot recreate the Big Bang, but we know quite a bit about it from testing our observations of the universe against our theories. Their lab is a bit larger than most, that's all. Spirits presumably do things. How do they do these things? Why can't we know how they do what they do? How do we know we can't know? Do we have to be dead first?(I'm starting to sound like Rummy again). In most religions, spirits interact with humans. If we can communicate, then why can't we find out how they function? If we can find out how they function, then why can't they be just another phenomenon in our universe which can be studied using the scientific method? This, I believe, is a misuse of the HUP. We cannot know the exact position of an electron, just as we cannot know what it feels like to travel faster than light, because that information exists only in our imaginations, but then again, so does Santa Claus. It is not part of our observable universe. It is possible that we can know everything knowable about electrons, light, and our observable universe. (I should have used the term 'observable universe' previously. We cannot know anything about the unobservable universe that lies further away than light could have traveled since its creation.)

As always, go with what you've got. P.S.It's also the same government that won two world wars simultaneously, put men on the moon, and invented the internet.

A little historical clarification here: the Hillary plan failed more for the way she went about trying to ram it through congress than for its basic principles. Hillary naively thought that the way to break congress's historical inaction on the issue was to create a final proposal without much congressional consultation, and then present it to congress as a final product for passage. Predictably, congress balked. I'd wager that Hillary is a little more savvy these days. This was one of the top issues voters cared most about this past election. I'd expect some movement on it in the near future.

Besides, gluttony is a sin. But then again so are pride, lust, anger, and sloth. Fuck it. We're all going down.

I don't think anyone's trying to collect converts here, but no matter how many times this conversation occurs, there's usually enough fresh material presented to one or both sides to make it worthwhile.

The creationist perspective doesn't seek to invalidate science, it just provides an alternate explanation -- that the world was created with the appearance of age.... ....the creationist will argue that God did not feel the need to cause the universe to conform to future man's retro-analysis of how it all happened. So don't mistake a creationist for being ignorant or willfully in denial about science. Science is, by definition (Wiki): "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena based on empirical study and independent verification. Science typically, therefore, rejects supernatural explanations and arguments from authority." ....while both evolution and creation are historical speculations based on contemporary observations. Maybe evolution does accurately describe history, but it is not repeatable and never will be [neither is creation repeatable], given the time frame of the experiment, so I don't believe it is accurately labeled as "science." Whatever experiments and observations are made today, yes, definitely, it's science and therefore unassailable. The great strength of science and the very reason it has progressed so far is because of its rejection of supernatural explanations for observable phenomena. However, history is not observable. You incorrectly claim that evolution is neither observable nor repeatable, given the time scales involved. You are apparently unaware that the evolutionary time scale for viruses, bacteria, and even lizards (anolis) is measured in periods ranging from mere days for the former up to several years for the latter. Evolution makes predictions, and these predictions have been verified (i.e., the evolutionary mechanism in action) through many experiments involving creatures such as the ones I've just mentioned. Second, by your own cited definition of science, the discipline rejects supernatural explanations and arguments from authority, both of which accurately describe creationism. Evolution (science) and creationism (religion) are therefore at odds. Creationism is not a alternative 'theory', as some of its proponents argue, because it is not science. It is not science because it cannot provide a way to make predictions which are testable, verifiable, and repeatable, as you yourself stated. Finally, the concept of God-as-elaborate-practical-joker is every bit as much as an anthropomorphism as is God with a big white beard in a flowing robe sitting on a cloud. It is a human creation that employs human attributes to construct an elaborate ruse for human observers. It flies in the face of the Christian doctrine of God being purposeful. Why the hoax? To test our faith? To provide a big, fun puzzle for us to solve? To give us something to spray about? Why not just cut the pretense and make it obvious that the universe was created in seven days or whatever? What's there to hide? Finally, the very existence of an all powerful God produces some interesting paradoxes. If you define the universe as including everything that exists, then God cannot, by definition, exist outside the universe. Either he (or she or it) made himself when he made the universe or he was the universe before he made the rest of the universe. A second paradox arises. If you believe every process in the universe is ultimately knowable by humans, then the workings of God are ultimately knowable, testable, and that makes God just another scientific phenomeno in the universe. If you do not believe the opening statement of this paragraph, the next question is: why not? One possible reason is that God exists outside the universe, but this violates our definition of same. If God manipulates the physical universe, why would the processes by which he does so not be eventually knowable by humans?

Despite DNA evidence suggesting that humans and neanderthals interbred, I will continue denying that I am related to you in any way.

I consider myself a necrovegan. BTW, this topic's been covered in a previous thread.

Both Brooks and Tierney in the NYT have come out with anti Borat rants...within which they admit to laughing their asses off. A liberal elite snobbishly lampooning bumpkins while the kind of like-minding folks that make up the audience remain untouched, blah, blah. They obviously haven't seen Bruno or Ali G in action.

I always knew I was Left leaning, but...

Do NOT see the movie.