JUGGERNAUT

The phrase "you run around crying foul" can be construed as a personal attack & might be testing the guidlines as put forth by a mod. But in response I do no such thing. As long as I'm left alone to reply I say nothing. It is action imposed upon me by a mod that forces me to call for fairness. Believe it or not I have written some lib-speak posts myself. You can search on common themes to lib-speak under my name to find them. I'm probably the most open-minded person on the forum. I'm probably one of the few capable of seeing merit on both sides of an argument. For example: Though culturally I will never recognize same-sex unions as marriage I do agree that the existing paradigm of entitlements is seriously flawed & should be changed. Now a true conservative would disagree as they likely will not separate the two ideas. Likewise a true liberal is primarily concerned with the cultural aspect & likely won't separate the two either. So I represent something of a middle-ground that is open to both points of view. Though it's not related it does serve as a good example. A Darwinist likely has a closed mind to the possibility that human evolution arose from more than just spontaneous mutation & natural selection. A Creationist likely has a closed mind to the possibility that spontaneous mutation & natural selection are major contributors to human evolution. An IDist represents someone who is one step removed from Darwinism. Someone who agrees with the science derived from the theory of evolution but not the philosophy. You do not have to agree with the philosophy in order to accept the science. Why has IDism surfaced recently as opposed to previous years? Because of breakthru findings in QT & the philisophical implications arising from them. It has reached a level of consciousness today where it is beginning to surface in mainstream media worldwide. The Matrix is a good example of that. I prefer to see the specific evidence rather then amass a general feel on the subject.

I never mentioned Futurists from MIT & ID in the same sentence nor have I implied anything about them with respect to ID. Though I can easily quote some of them that have spoken on God as it relates to QT & GUT. But that's irrelevant to my reference. My reference was simply in regards to what our future holds in the next 50 yrs. Short of a catclysmic disater or LEE if we can progress we will progress. That includes conquering the frail nature of our existence.

I would be very interested to see any evidence of said persons engaging in debate arguing a generally accepted conservative viewpoint.

By intelligent life I would say life capable of creating things like we are. As for the elasticity of technology if we can progress we will progress. When you consider that collective intelligence as it is exhibited via networking today has only been around for about the last 30 years it boggles the mind what our future holds. Futurists from MIT & other prestigious universities will tell you as much

Leading the ALC: Chicago 87 51 24 left Actual Countdown to AL crown & ALC crown: 20 EN: #2 in AL 82 56 24gr 15 EN: Wild Card 78 60 24gr 15 EN: Cleveland 78 61 23gr 10 EN: Minnesota 73 66 23gr 02 EN: Detroit 63 74 25gr 00 EN: Kansas City ELIMINATED It is a countdown thread afterall

Because I firmly believe the forum needs at least one visible conservative minded voice. It's pretty clear what that means in America today. Now truth be it told my personal opinion is not always as conservative minded as my posts. In fact I'm considered liberal on many ideas. But considering the ovewhelming number of lib-speak posts in this forum it's of greater value to the forum if I articulate the con-speak view. As for the guidelines an influential mod has outlined his position such that it's a very fine line as to what constitutes flaming in a post. Generally speaking "missing the point" can be construed as "ignorant of what I'm saying".

Again I think the media is partly to blame. How many columnists actually celebate in their posts this incredible season? Mariotti writes one post saying we won't choke & then follows it up later with "we are hopeless" emphasizing that we are not good against contenders. When this message is trumpeted again & again the psychological impact is such that games against non-contenders are meaningless to the fair-weather fan. So now the general belief amongst the non die-hard is that we will have an early exit. That reduces the buzz factor of the team.

Life can evolve in the most harshest conditions imaginable. For the vast majority of evolutionary time spent on this planet life was mostly a primordial soup. The likelihood that such life exists elsewhere in the Universe is high. However the likelihood that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe is extremely low based on the chronology of events that brought us into being. With respect to the further evolution of the human eye we are on the road to being our own intelligent designers. Human cloning, genetic manipulation, cyborg technology are all inevitable consequences of some people's desire to live forever. The fact that we can do it will trump any discussion or barrier on whether we should do it. From here on out natural selection will have little impact on human evolution. The primary influence will be our intelligence & the technology that arises from it.

In accordance with the new guidelines I ask that you refrain from personal references in your posts. Statements such as "you miss the point completely" will undoubtedly be followed up with "No, you have" & vice versa & flamatory remarks will escalate. It is best to mold your posts in a general context having no personal reference to any single poster. For example: There is nothing preventing two same-sex people from getting married in some cultural circle in America that chooses to celebrate that union with them. This issue is about forcing a paradigm on other social & cultural circles who choose not to celebrate that union with them & the entitlements that are afforded to that union. Likewise because of the entitlements it definitely does have an economic impact on tax payers & the insured who choose not to recognize the union.

In relation to Biology ID deals with the plausibility that the evolution of our cognitive functions arose strictly from spontaneous mutation & natural selection. In relation Quantum Physics There are actually two choices: 1) Assume that Einstein was wrong & that things can exceed the speed of light or 2) Assume that Einstein was right & come up with new explanations for why things appear to be omnipresent in the subatomic world.

Heaven and Hell and Earths in Universe by Emanuel Swedenborg

If marriage was that great a key to happiness then the majority of them would not end in divorce.

Follow the money. Nothing gets accomplished without significant investment. The money is pouring into nanotech & robotics. Over the next 25 yrs most of the US Air Force will transform from manned to unmanned flights. That's where the contracts are going.

That post is both offensive & flamatory to those of us who do not share your opinion. Economically, socially, & culturally Americans do not share the same views on marriage. All polls & surveys strongly indicate they prefer to think of marriage in the ideal sense: An ever-lasting promise between man & a woman to love & provide for each other with the hope of bringing new life into this world. Marriage entitlements arose out of a time when the typical family was as follows: 1) The husband was the bread-winner in a single income HH 2) The wife was the stay home Mom (marriage was synonymous with children) Today that's no longer the case but entitlements such as these are very hard to change when they have become engrained in the culture. Ideally the government should move these entitlements away from that traditional paradigm to a new paradigm. This would not only affect taxes but likewise regulations on insurance & so forth. The new paradigm should simply recognize dependants & care-givers. If someone chooses to provide for another they should be given the same breaks as the traditional family would have. You can co-sign a loan for a friend but you can't claim them as a dependant when it comes to health insurance. That's simply wrong. Over time with that economic change in place the government could then simply withdraw from the idea of recognizing marriage altogether. That would leave marriage to the social & cultural circles of American life. That's the ideal solution as it pertains to the free-exercise clause in the US Cons.

1) Look up the leading physicists in QT that have discussed God & spiritual existence. 2) You need to study QT in depth to understand the relevance. 3) A blueprint is indicative of an intelligent design. That's common knowledge. It is not indicative of spontaneous mutation & natural selection.

Unless you are having fun we should probably stop debating. What's occuring is that you counter me, I counter you, you counter me, I counter you, etc. It's not going to end in either one of us changing each other's opinion. It's like the post prior to yours suggesting that I'm claiming that natural selection is not still at work. I've made no such claim. On the contrary I have emphasized more than once it plays a major role in human evolution. That's present context. I strongly disagree on your statement referring to GUT & QT. The majority of the discussions in physics revolving around God centers around intelligent design governing the Universe. I've not read anything to the contrary. Indeed one of the advanced theories in QT is that thought manifests reality & affects matter. Are you going to claim that's not suggestive of ID?

2) A reply quotes my post & makes defamatory & derogatory references to me personally. 3) I reply with a forceful effort to destroy the argument put forth by the offensive reply. I would not reply forcefully if the reply to my post did not initiate defamatory & derogatory references. You can look at recent discussion threads between myself & FlaSoxJim as evidence of such. I do not seek to destroy his argument. I find his input to be insightful to the debate & I use it to hone my own.

The problem is that I provide a factual basis which some do not agree with. It's still a factual basis. A researcher uses the word "blueprint" in the context of his findings. I conclude that is suggestive of "intelligent design" based on the meaning of the word "blueprint". Some suggest the researcher meant something else contrary to the meaning of the word. The same can be said of some members claiming to be conservative in their viewpoints. The evidence is in their posts. What they are beyond the forum is irrelevant to what they write in their posts. It should be pretty clear what is & is not a conservative minded viewpoint in America today. So let's add it all up: 1) Quantum Theory research has led to major discussions of God & our spiritual existence. 2) QT deals with the Subatomic world which makes up the atomic world & in turn the molecular world. 3) Recent reseach is leading to the belief that extraordinary events have led to human evolution. Events that suggest there is more at work than just spontaneous mutation & natural selection. That's the factual scientific basis for ID.

You have nailed it. I view ID to mean Intelligent Design but the majority of the 64% polled view it as Intelligent Designer. All I've advocated is that spontaenous mutation & natural selection alone do not account for human evolution. Darwin himself stated the same thing when asked about the human eye. He used the word "absurd" at that notion. Recent research suggests our brains played a prominent role in the evolution of the eye. Other researchers believe they have found the genes that played a prominent role in regulating our brain sizes. I've never heard any one suggest that 25 million years is plenty of time to explain the vast development of the human brain. That is why these findings are so profound. With respect to an Intelligent Designer the connection lies in QT. The wacky crazy world of Quantum Theory has led to physics converging with philosophy as we now have to confront a world that seems to defy laws of space & time. This has led to strange theories of alternate universes, ghosts in the machine, realization of a spirit world, & God as the ultimate observer. A Grand Unifying Theory lends itself to intelligent design. So inevitably any discussion of QT involves a discussion of God. The question then is should QT be taught in K-9? That's a tough question. Traditionally you were grounded in CM before you learned about QT. But many believe you can teach the philosophical constructs of QT early on & leave the math until later. I tend to agree with that.

You won't find many researchers mention the term ID. The term is simply too hot an issue right now for any researcher to risk such media pressure. Instead they will make use of terms suggestive of ID like "blueprint", "unique", "priviledged", "enormous", "exceptionally" "complex", "software", etc. I would do the same thing if I were in there shoes. Use words that are strongly suggestive of an intelligent design but including references to natural selection. Lahn: "Human brain evolution required a major overhaul of the genetic blueprint." Vastly accelerated evolutionary changes in humans is a stark contrast to the belief that natural selection takes eons of time & the selective process at work in other species. It remains a mystery as to why this happened.

I'm going to ignore the fact that your post constitutes a personal attack. Let the mods do as they see fit on that post. Instead I will rebut the content. With respect to the majority of the time it's a pretty simple pattern: 1) I create a post supporting a conservative viewpoint which almost always includes a factual basis. 2) A reply quotes my post & makes defamatory & derogatory references to me personally. 3) I reply with a forceful effort to destroy the argument put forth by the offensive reply. 4) A mod takes action ONLY on my reply. 5) I make note of that in a subsequent reply & the mod might take further action. The telltale sign is in the numbers. Simply count up the number of posts that support a conservative viewpoint on an issue. Then count up the number of posts that flame that one. The numbers will clearly tell where the problem lies. The evidence is in the thread. Of all the posts that were edited only mine were completely wiped out. Likewise only my posts would have been edited if I had not called attention to it. The purpose of debate is to present an argument supported by a factual basis & to weaken opposing points of view using factual basis. That is what I do in my posts. Since I might be the lone wolf presenting conservative viewpoints I do expect counter arguments. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with spirited debate. I have admitted several times where I was wrong. I have even agreed with some counter arguments. I am not shy at admitting mistakes. I have likewised apologized if it became personal. So the generalization that I never admit when I am wrong is simply untrue. All I have ever asked from mods is to level the playing field. If I or an opinion of mine is attacked allow me to retaliate. Apparently that is asking too much. It serves no purpose to post if they are to be wiped out. So I have no choice but to assume that mine will be held to a higher standard than others & act to avoid such a consequence. The problem is that I am the most visibly conservative minded voice in the forum. I am not just a minority here. I am an endangered species.

Wasn't the Red Cross involved in a scandal with the 9/11 $$$? If so I sure hope they are being heavily scrutinized this time around. Why would any GOV of a Gulf Coast state wait on the Federal government to adequately keep out the Gulf waters? At what point did the states become that dependant on the Federal government to take what many would consider no-brainer dire-need action? Why would citizens fire on contractors? Because they are void of a definitive sense of morality. Why? Because no one taught them. Why? Ask the school boards. Perhaps they feel it's reasonable to leave such matters in the hands of the parents. :rolly

www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'. Only at SOXTALK would a thread of this nature digress to Kli-speak. :rolly

That's both tactless & offensive. With respect to the word "ignorant" I try never to personalize it. I am usually careful to make reference to what is said in the post as being ignorant of something rather than the poster themselves. I believe that was the case here. Logically speaking, calling another poster ignorant in a post demonstrates ignorance of the word. It's impossible for any one to be 100% ignorant. Everyone knows something. Some more than others.

Do these regulations apply to greens are well?