dorbie

Wrong. You have a deeply flawed understanding of information theory. I suggest you listen to the podcast "Evolution 101" and in particular podcast number 128 (started at 101) an episode titled "What is Information Theory" the pertinent section starts at about 12 minutes into the podcast, it will explain in great detail why creationist information theory arguments are nonsense, but even a simple intuitive understanding of evolution can tell you this. Have fun listening....

That guy needs a better lawyer.

Any asshole can be nice when everything is going smoothly and according to plan. That guy seems to have forgotten you were his customer, right after he forgot the dive plan you agreed on. Shit happens, but saving face at your expense? What should you do? It's up to you if you use another vidiot from now on and advise others accordingly.

Apparently not pissed away as evidenced by your OP. You seem oblivious to the fact that this story if we accept it as true (which you seem to insist we do) spectacularly indicts your determined campaign during those 4 years.

Here's one of my daughter in a paraglider harness.

So you're basically agreeing "Mission Accomplished".

Let me repeat, read my first post in this thread. She can believe she's the Queen of Sheba, that doesn't mean we have to bow in her presence.

My jaw has officially dropped. Try reading an actual biology book. Any biology book. Try reading the "backtracking" revisions of some (e.g. Piltdown Man). You probably believe the representation of apes slowly progressing to a standing position and eventually to man in your textbook. That exists nowhere but in that artists imagination. Piltdown man was an isolated incident of fraud. Do you know how it was uncovered? The REST of the fossil record was so consistent in showing a different evolutionary path that the invention stood out like a sore thumb.

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it. There are literally mountains of evidence and if you dig into them they yield fosils. There are tens of thousands of fossils catalogued in the record. It beggars belief that you'd call this a handful. There's an entire chronology of very consistent fossil evidence using multiple dating methods (that all agree) that correlates perfectly with evolution and major finds all the time that fit with the theory. You have to be completely ignorant of what's actually going on in science to assert that there's a handful of questionable findings. Perhaps you get your science news based on whatever the 700 club highlights for the purposes of objection, but there are better sources.

Natural selection is working in exactly the opposite direction that you need it to in order to believe molecules to man evolution. Natural selection and mutation occurs. However, that doesn't help the cause of New Darwinian Evolution. The theory is flawed at at its onset. The capacity for much variation is built into the gene. The capacity to "evolve" into something else altogether is not. It is also not what we see in "observed" science. It exists only in the pictures of your textbook. Wrong.

She wasn't barred from saying they had sex, she was barred from saying he raped her. I suspect this was because the judge thought the key decision for the jury in this case was to determine whether the circumstances amounted to rape, and that would have been prejudiced by all the witnesses in the trial using that term which in this case WOULD have been pejorative. If all the prosecution witnesses before the jury are saying "rape" and "sexual assault" in a case which centers around whether the circumstances even amounted to rape you might think you risk a miscarriage of justice.

Well if the jail was packed with those girls it'd be a good thing. It's a pitty about that speech, sometimes these idiotic memes take root, a young mind is a terrible thing to waste. Perhaps she shoud have given a talk on the dangers of alcohol abuse instead, it might have served the woman better in this case.

How much of this was stated in the article? Also, it seems that your saying that if a woman gets friendly with a guy (let's say kissing)... and she gets hammered, she really has no reason to complain if the guy takes her clothes off and screws her. Is that about right? See my first post in this thread instead of just attacking a strawman (not that it's much of a strawman). Let me repeat this because it bears repeating and you seem to have completely missed it. She obviously did not say NO. If she had said NO we would not be hearing that she was too drunk to consent, we'd be hearing that she said NO. Anyone who says they were too drunk to consent is not making an argument that they registered an objection to intercourse, they are saying they lacked the capacity to object so by clear inference we can know that she did not say NO.

Just making a distinction between microevolution (which I wholeheartedly accept) and macroevolution (which I'm not as certain about). The story of the Peppered Moths is a great example of microevolution, but (IMO) not a great example of Evolution. Well if the mountains of fossil evidence does not persuade you and you lack the imagination to extrapolate or understand this event then wait a million years or so and get back to us. Micro & macro meh, what tosh.

At no point does it say that the man was drunk or so drunk that he lost control of his will, quite the contrary. The man says it was consensual. The woman claims she was too drunk to consent and had regrettable sex, she also by implication asserts that the man was in control of his faculties, certainly she assumes he consented at the very least. If you've admittedly gotten yourself so drunk to be in this mess then damned right you should control your drinking, in this case the woman should control her drinking, nobody has information on the man to say either way, deal with it. We know she did not say NO, drunk or sober no means no, but since she's blaming the alcohol for her inability to consent the inference is that she did NOT say no. If she had said no she could just say "I said NO" rather than "I was drunk".

That is just a denialist rejection of yet more evidence in support of evolution. Here we have a small change that was random but because the benefit was significant it was strongly selected for and it rapidly swept through a population. That is just what evolution and the theory of natural selection predicts.

Well done for shaking that shit, I know you don't need my congratulations, intellectual freedom is its own reward.

Ouch, bad example (otherwise good post), Mother Teresa doesn't hold up well under scrutiny when you look at the details. Hitchens actually learned of worse stuff after he published his book. http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/ The only amazing thing is how her public image persists despite this.

P.S. this isn't the first example AFAIK. From memory, they've seen krill pigmentation alter through selection as a result of ozone depletion.

It's a dynamic system and there's never a situation where there is no environment. Even in the absence of environmental changes there are interrelationships that develop, even members of your own species form the environment you're in and other species are also your environment (like the bacillus in this story). Internal factors matter. Things do ultimately tend to a stable system until something shakes it up, but it's not a guarantee. You can have a stable environment and geography that lends itself to dynamic changes in the populations I think.

1) the woman should control her drinking 2) it depends on the circumstances, if she was physically unconscious or close and unable to consent and he had intercourse it's rape. 3) if he gave her additional alcohol she was unaware of he's on very thin ice, could be rape. 4) If she was totally smashed and made a regrettable decision even with severely diminished capacity it's tough shit and yes it's an amazing double standard WTF is the prosecutor thinking? Very odd case but it depends on shit we'll never learn in an article and stuff that's unprovable. A recent study found that 40% of rape accusations on American college campuses are false based on followup interviews and admissions by the victims. This is very much in line with a long history of similar studies over decades in different areas. We don't need to broaden the scope of this problem by adding this kind of category IMHO. At some point one would hope the scope for reasonable doubt and miscarriage should keep cases away from a jury, but we know that's not the case with American D.A.s, especially in politically charged cases.

So he's saying he finally read a newspaper and it was Armitage. Come on, this is old news we know where the leak came from, and Armitage told Fitzgeralt who ordered Armitage to stay quiet about it as he tried to trap Libby. This is a friggin' pantomime. EVERYONE already knows it was Armitage so where's the story?

Hey, TRY TO KEEP UP. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT WENT ON BEFORE THE VIDEO CAMERA CAUGHT UP. Why do you think the cop had the kid on the ground. Do you think that the cop yanked him off the board and threw him on the ground for no reason? Newsflash: cops don't arrest people on the ground unless they resist or they are wanted on felony warrrants. Actually I don't have an axe to grind, I was brought up to respect cops, I've never been on the wrong side of the law excluding traffic tickets, my brother-in-law is a great cop whom I admire and my uncle was a cop. But to see the conduct of some officers in the USA and the jingoism and closed ranks every single time they run amok is just shocking. Maybe I'm used to better conduct and have higher expectations of cops than you. I respect the law and those who enforce it, but I wasn't spoon-fed a diet of anything goes and support the thin-blue-line at all costs bullshit from the cradle. In summary, your assumption that anyone who has an issue with law enforcement in one instance is somehow in the anti-cop camp is WAY off the mark. We don't know what went on before the video but there's ample material on the video showing a thug abusing teenage kids because he's lost his temper. Cops cannot use unreasonable/unjustified force. The classic fig leaf of what happened before the video just doesn't cut it here, there's too much actually on the video for that to fly. You should be reticent about defending this conduct, I wonder if it's just rank closing bullshit of if you're saying you yourself would act like the unprofessional ass-clown with a badge in the video. Surely not.

Wrong, scoop a U.K. policeman has posted in this forum how certain politically incorrect speech is now criminal in the U.K. and he relishes arresting people for it and just wishes it could be extended to the internet. I agree education is the key, both of parliamentarians and those forming the thin blue line.

AFAIK (from high school science class a long time ago) Tin cans were actually mostly steel with tin plating to prevent corrosion. Denting risked exposing the iron to the food and Fe3+ ions are poisonous. Basically don't eat rust, if you're worried wash the can & check if inside isn't corroded before you eat. Modern cans are mostly aluminum (with maybe a steel & tin lid). It shoud be OK if you think it's still sealed but it's your health and your call.