Evolution Poll

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Should have been a candidate for the darwin awards!�  But she survived and it was not her fault so I guess technically would not meet the criteria.

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2013/02/20/florida-woman-injured-after-gun-magazine-left-in-oven

The man that stored the mag in the oven is the candidate. [edited by GG].

The NFL will attempt an overseas adventure with an team, i can’t say it will work or not. Worth a try, better than a small U.S market city. The London game should have been better teams, first class teams like a Dallas Cowboy and Oakland Raider match up.

@GoSanchez6:

Watch Nfl network most of the analysts agree with me on this one. Brady plays in a system he doesn’t read defenses like Manning. Manning calls almost all of his plays. Look at this years playoffs Brady couldn’t audible his way out against what the Jets threw at him. Manning did most of the night.

NFL players poll placed Brady over Manning.

@ncscswitch:

Not sure about the eyes, but I think moving the playground away from the sewers might have been a good idea   :lol:

classic engineering joke!

functionally speaking, however, why not move all of your sewage out of the same pipes?

@Zooey72:

What happened that made Germany so strategic, the cold war. And you know that. It was also in our best intrest to have Germany rebuild its military to help with the Warsaw pact/Nato arms race

You think that was the reason why the US entered the war? AFAIK only Churchill was “wise” enough to look into the future and see this upcoming conflict. The US gov’t did not, thus it can not be the reason for invasion. (Remember that is what we are talking about)

You also know that democracy failed in Germany because of the stab in the back mentality of the German people.

I know, but you know that your point of the last post was "If the US had wanted democracy after WWI, you would have ‘gone in’ ". My answer was: there was no need for you to go in. I don’t argue what you wrote in this post, but this here does not really relate to your earier post.

3rd point. Have we destroyed Iraq the way we did Germany? Think before you knee jerk reaction of “yes” …

Think and remember this should not be a flame war, before you warn me of a knee jerk reaction, especially when you are not long enough a member here on the board to know that i often enough disapproved of this comparison. Germany was bleeded out by the war, Iraq was not. The German population suffered from a year long war, Iraq did not (they suffered from a year long trade-ban, but that is not the same than having bombs fall on your regularly).

Mien kamph… if you are going to study Nazi Germany you should read the autobiography of the man who ran it all. Some of the refrences I used was to show what a dumb a** Stalin was for thinking he could trust Hitler when the book clearly states that he was going to attack.

Like the “dumb” jews who stayed?
Anyway … the book was written in prison, before 1933. If you want to study the regime, then yes, it is interesting to compare what happened to what was proposed in the book. But, it is more important to study what really happened.

Darn! you found me out! :lol:

@cystic:

… I keep to things i have mastered - genetics, biochemistry - and avoid the whole physics realm.

very unfortunately for me :)

And of course you would not use flawed creationists arguements to dispute creation - that would be too easy, and one might easily use flawed evolutionists arguments in the same vein.

Well, i can use it to discredit one of the debaters ;)…. rethorics is part of debating…
btw, did you mean (flawed creationists) argument or flawed (creationists argument)…
as i have no problem in discrediting someone who reveals himself as (flawed debater) while someone who brings just one flawed argumetn does not deserve that treatment. Just to make that clear.

As for the “light”-discussions - i just assume that even Einstein had no idea what he was talking about and that every generation will have some wild new revelation about light that disputes that of earlier generations. who cares? 8)

Hmmm…. Light has been an interesting topic, lively discussed during Newtons time (wether light was a particle or a wave), then with Maxwell it seemed it was “decided” (pro wave), but with the early Quantum Mechanics again the understanding changed/grew (wave-particle dualism). Now with Quantum Field Theory, we seem to have a pretty good grasp on what is happening.
The Ether that should be the medium for the electromagnetic wave is still another topic.

So, we see that theories change and evolve or even the old one is thrown into the dustbin, whenever something new (feature/experiment) is discovered, revealed or proven. Up to now, i don’t see the need for a creationist theory, just as you probably see it.

I’m guilty for creating my share of polls.  8-)