JamesHackerMP

I thought this bible thread was supposed to be about biblical contradictions.

Pretty silly, I concur. Israel has been a haven for gays and lesbians kicked out of (or threatened with execution in) some of the other countries in the region.

or popular culture of course. Yes, they tend to be more laid back in the south for example. It sounds to me that some of the beliefs about American culture cam be exaggerrated, even grossly at times.

The qur'an.

Good point. Are there Antarctic firms? lol

as an addendum: when Bell Atlantic, he said, merged with Nynex (the NY/New Eng. baby bell) he said the New Yorkers took over, and they had no idea of the "culture" down here in Maryland area. I don't have any big business experience of my own but it seems to me that it depends on what part of the US a given businessman is from. Down in the south it is said people are more passive, in the northeast, more aggressive.

I probably shouldn't have said nationalistic like that, my apologies. Actually, it sounds like US businessmen are a bit...cocky perhaps? Now that I think of that it wouldn't surprise me. Especially from what my father told me about the people who now run Verizon. They seem to like "confidence" (an admirable trait if channeled in the right direction) but perhaps it goes too far among American businessmen. My father worked for the phone company, now Verizon. He said that the guys now running it are real arrogant dickheads. If it's not like that in Canada, I'd rather work in Canadian business any day than down here.

I don't entirely understand; can you elaborate on that? (sorry)

Now THAT is clever!

that sounds pretty nationalistic, cannuck. Not for nothing, but what's your business background?

Is it really in the interests of the government to no longer have notes and coins? What about in the interest of banks and other financial institutions?

I think you all need to read the 25th amendment more carefully. To relieve the president of duty (and make Pence "Acting President") the Vice President, and also a simple majority of the cabinet, must sign a letter to the Speaker of the House and the President (pro tempore) of the Senate, stating the president is unable to discharge his duties. However, Trump could write another letter to the Speaker and the PPT saying, "they're wrong, I'm fine." THEN, the VP & majority of the cabinet must write a letter reiterating their position ("Oh no, he isn't!"). When that is done, Congress must assemble within 48 hours to vote on the president's status. That's how it works. In other words, the Democrats have to get Vice-President Pence, eight of the 15 heads of the executive departments (members of the actual cabinet not just "cabinet level" officers) to concur. And if Trump tries to rebut, you'd need majorities of the houses of Congress included in the coup. Sec. 3 allows for the President to remove himself (not as president, but to relieve him of his duty and make the VP Acting President) by writing the letter himself. This was done twice under Bush when he had a colonoscopy, according the wikipedia article you cited. But of course, Trump would never remove himself unless he went under anesthesia. I would imagine that that is the reason for Sec. 3.

it would make me toss my cookies

Well that sux! And I wanted to retire on the Moon. The figure you quoted us on the STS (3G's) doesn't sound too bad. In 2001, it mentioned that when the Orion spaceplane took off for the space station he was thrust back into his cushy seat and the seat belts were of course full harnesses. I liked how Dr floyd was watching TV on a screen imbedded in the seat in front of him. Wow, pretty prphetic. But if we can keep it to no more than 3G's on the way up/down, that probably wouldn't be too bad for most people, would it?

Well if they're going to build a space elevator within the next two hundred years, they'd better get cracking. I'm still in favor of one of those. Nonetheless, I think private industry will help the second space race happen. During the Cold War it was awesome how we were beating the russians. Surely the successful moon landings by the United States helped contribute to the downfall of the USSR. But once more fiscally conservative politicians were able to throw the dollar signs in front of everyone's faces, the optimism toward space travel faded. The shuttle was amazingly expensive. What we need is something that can take off horizontally, from a regular runway, like the SpaceShipOne/White Knight vehicles. You could put "stuff" in orbit via more traditional launch vehicles, but send the people up in space planes; some sort of reusable vehicle that would take people up who might be there for a short trip, and not for the long-term rigors of living in zero G. Even to go on the space shuttle as a "passenger" (like Sen. Glenn did some years ago) required special training, some of which the former astronaut would have been familiar with. In 2001 A Space Odyssey, the Chairman of the NCA (like NASA Administrator) travels to the Moon via a special space plane that is even painted "Pan American" on the side. (In the sequel made in 1980s, there was a fake commercial to fly Pan am "Where the sky is no longer the limit"). Take into account also that Dr Floyd was wearing a business suit on his trip rather than any special garments conducive to space travel. I guess it wouldn't be that simple would it?

Nobody? Geeze. Someone out there has to be into Japanese besides me.

Is there any way to clean up the s**** that's floating in Earth orbit???

According to more conservative Marylanders, yes, it might as well be Canada. Last governor tried to tax rain water from storms. I kid you not. So no, it sounds more like you'd pay us.

God bless.

Betsy you seem to keep going back and forth over the same points, even after we've already said we disagree with you, and that it's unlikely we're going to be convinced otherwise since we look at it a little differently than you do. I'm only saying that, no matter what you want to quote, the Bible wasn't intended to teach science. I'm going to rest my case on that.

Seriously? And after I just congratulated you all on your 150th anniversary? Guess no deed goes unpunished, lol. Can't we all just get along?

Agreed. I've been to Paris, in 1998 it was 10F to get you anywhere in the city (10F was nothing, not even paper money).

Happy 150th! From your elder (if somewhat senile) neighbors to the south!

Betsy, it is impressive that you have cited these scientific principles. But your understanding of them is somewhat flawed, and at best, "Pseudo-" scientific. OK, laws of Thermodynamics, universe expansion and evolution aside, this is where I have a problem with your main argument, and you seem to keep dodging this point, as well, and continuing to mention the same thing over and over again. (I can read by the way, I have read your posts, it would save time if you stopped saying "but remember what I said above..." etc. I don't need to remember, because as I just pointed out, I can read, and I've read your posts, and it would save time if you stopped saying "but remember what I said above..." etc., and of course see what I said in this exact paragraph about the fact that I can read your repetitious posts. I can read.) Anywho, the problem I have with your main argument---and you can see this point above, because I made it, see?--is that these "details" in the Bible are BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. God wasn't trying to teach his divinely-inspired authors scientific principles, because they would not have understood them. They are meant to illustrate a point of some sort. Jesus teaches his followers in the NT parables. Similarly, Jewish leaders were instructing the faithful via the traditions mentioned there (the Jewish Canon/AKA the old testament). Religion is not meant to prop up science. Science is not meant to prop up religion. They are two different realms that attempt to explain the unknown. Religion is different from science in that you cannot prove it. That is what the word Faith means: you have strong belief in something that you cannot prove empirically. God did not leave proof of his existence. If he did, and the biblical traditions are meant to prop up scientific fact, then why would Faith be required? Can you trust the Bible? Yes, you certainly can. But it depends what you trust it to do!!! If you're trusting it to "prove" scientific fact, the Bible will be entirely untrustworthy. We can prove that the universe was created in the Big Bang. Bravo, Betsy. However, we cannot prove that the Big Bang was a result of a creator-entity with biblical verses; likewise, we cannot prove those biblical verses with scientific knowledge. It requires, again, Faith. You're not helping the Bible, or Christianity (or Judaism), or the wisdom contained within, or the Word of Jesus Christ by trying to tart it up in the garb of science and mathematics. On the other hand, if you trust the bible to be a moral and spiritual guide, a solid foundation of Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then it is entirely trustworthy. Spot on. I believe that, too. I went to Sunday school growing up, too, btw. I have a copy of the Bible (two actually) and read it sometimes. There is great wisdom contained within. However, they are usually related as parables (in the NT principally) and ancient Hebrew traditions about the world (in the OT principally) that must be taken, not in a literal sense, but as a moral and spiritual guide. A devout Christian can definitely trust the bible to do that. In order to ask "Why trust the Bible" you must first ask "Trust it to do what?" If you forget this step, you have matter and antimatter. They touch, kaboom (called "annihilation" by the eggheads). I think it's great that you have faith in God. I think it's terrible that you have put that faith in dire jeopardy by using it as a rubric for empirical proof of science. Science cannot prove religion. Religion cannot prove science. You're looking for a "shortcut" to Faith, Betsy. There is none. My problem with your argument is not that your science is wrong, or that your biblical quotations are inaccurate. My problem with your argument is the nasty admixture of the empirical and the faithful. You can't ask WHY trust the bible, unless you ask, TRUST IT TO DO WHAT? OK, I hope that explains it. If it does not, I'm terribly sorry. I will pray for you.

Actually, the landmasses expanded and contracted several times, to be precise. But I'm sure you were implying that. Read: On time scales lasting hundreds of millions of years, the supercontinents have assembled and broken apart. Roughly 750 Mya (million years ago), one of the earliest known supercontinents, Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600–540 Mya, then finally Pangaea, which also broke apart 180 Mya.[71 (Wikipedia, "Earth") I'm assuming you mean animal species mostly. They're actually not called "asexual" but "hermaphroditic". Asexual reproduction is typically observed in single-celled organisms. But maybe you actually single-celled organisms when you said "asexual". I'm sure that's what you meant, though.