kimmy

Not really. This is agreeing on the facts science has established-- evolution, the big bang, a very old universe that is expanding, a very old earth that isn't the center of the universe, and everything else. You can look at all of these facts, and still believe that a god participated in the process. Maybe it was all part of a great plan. Maybe the big bang happened because god wanted it to. Maybe the physical constraints of our universe were designed brilliantly to produce conditions where life would be possible. You could agree 100% with the facts as established by science, and still see these facts as being evidence of what a clever designer god is. That's what is meant by the quote Betsy keeps repeating. One backpacker on a mountain might look at the sun setting and think "this is majestic." His friend looks at the same thing and thinks "God is an amazing artist." One scientist might look at some newly uncovered information about how our universe works and think "that's awesome" and his collaborator looks at the same information and thinks "God is a brilliant engineer." It's a perspective on real science, not an alternative to real science. -k

Sounds like some pretty far-fetched claims from a pretty biased source... -k

This to me sounds like the best short-term compromise as well. You get the performance possibilities and efficiency of an electric motor, combined with the energy density and easy use of chemical fuel. I believe that using chemical fuel to drive an electric generator is considerably more efficient than using chemical fuel to power the drive-line directly, especially when things like using engine-braking to charge the battery are added to the mix. I also believe that there are more efficient ways of using chemical fuel to generate electricity than the reciprocating piston engine. Once upon a time Chrysler did some research and built some experimental vehicles using gas turbine engines, and found that while the engines were smooth and powerful and quite efficient, they found that they sucked when it came to operating at different speeds... ie, they like to stay at one RPM range and don't change speed well and don't perform well outside their optimum range. But if you're driving an electric generator, that ceases to be an issue. You can have the engine running in its optimum range. Electrical storage and charging technology will get there eventually... but to me the idea of using chemical fuel to boost the range of a car sounds like a good compromise. -k

Well, if people are watching it then I guess the ... uh... "athletes" deserve to make money from it... but I just don't get the appeal. -k

The statement is simple, but it's not me that's misinterpreted it, it is you. You can post it as many times as you want, and it won't change that. Here is what it says has been "revealed": "Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." Some scientists see god's hand in this, but others clearly do not. You keep going on about this "scientific evidence" in favor of theistic evolution. What is it? This seemingly enormous statement from NAS was made nearly 20 years ago, but nobody in the field of Christian Apologetics seems to be presenting this alleged evidence. "Intelligent Design Scientists" like the Discovery Institute haven't been able to identify this evidence. What "scientific evidence" are you actually talking about? -k

The music thread exists so that people can share their favorite music. We are allowing it to continue as is because people seem to enjoy it and see no reason to change. Enjoy it for what it is, or ignore it. But it's not going to be the standard by which the rest of the forum is run. We are trying. -k

We don't want people to post a video and say "watch this. It explains everything", in the same way that we don't want people to just post a whole newspaper article and say "read this." If the video contains information that's important to the discussion, cite the video as part of your discussion. "As this video from Kim City News Network shows, nearly 3 people attended the #BlondeLivesMatter rally." The video should be a supplement to your post that people can access if they wish, it shouldn't be the focus of your post. We feel that embedded videos are distracting, especially when people include them in quoted messages. We'd like your own words to be the focus of your posts, and embedded videos work contrary to that idea. Similarly with images. We have been allowing people to post small graphs that convey relevant information. But what we don't want is for people to use pictures to make their arguments. "This is why we need to deport bears: <bear-massacre.jpg>" -k

sdfsdf No, your paraphrasing of point #2 is wrong. They are saying that science reveals the remarkable character of the universe, which "many" scientists attribute to God, but MANY OTHERS do NOT. Think about this. Think of all the years you've been coming to this message board trying to convince people that God exists, posting the latest arguments from all your websites... and now you're trying to peddle the notion that this debate was actually already settled in 1998? You're telling us that the National Academy of Science found evidence for God's existence... and they buried it on page 7 of a minor publication? Do you think such an astounding announcement just went unnoticed for 20 years until you discovered it by chance in the FAQ on the web-page of a NASA space-probe that went off-line in 2010? Don't you think such a significant announcement would have made headlines? That it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops by the religious community? That the websites you get your pro-Creation information from would have mentioned it? Don't you think all of this just defies logic? Don't you think the far more likely explanation is that you simply misinterpreted what the quote actually means? For me and I'm sure everybody else as well, the latter explanation is the one that makes sense. -k

People decide for themselves what they'd like to watch. People who excel at activities that people enjoy watching (be it singing, acting, playing guitar, putting balls through hoops, punching other people in the face, etc) are providing entertainment that others are clearly willing to pay to watch. Did you know that you can now get on your computer and watch teams of geeks play video games against each other? I was astounded to find out that this is now a thing that people do for fun. I've played video games myself for fun... but the idea of watching other people play video games strikes me as rather weird for some reason. But is it really that different from watching people play a sport? I guess not. -k

That's super for Albert. Isaac Newton was also devoutly religious. None of that actually supports the claim that the National Academy of Scientists has declared Theistic Evolution as their official position. I already posted a link to the publication from which betsy's quote is cropped. You're welcome to look through that and find any such declaration. I doubt you'll even try, because you know full-well that you won't find one. Which is why you're now throwing out more red herring than a Norwegian trawler. -k

Equally bunk that a group of people of which only 7% of the members believe in god has adopted Theistic Evolution as their official position. -k

Since the NAS doesn't have an official position, I certainly don't feel threatened by it. The quote is what it is, but it certainly isn't what you and betsy claim it is. The 93% figure is something I'd heard kicked around before... it appears to come from the survey referenced here. The actual figures are 7% believe in god, 72% don't believe in god, 21% agnostic or doubting. -k

Which two industries? Relief agencies and weapons manufacturers? I think both of them have been around for many centuries in various forms... I don't think this is a uniquely 21st century phenomenon that's emerging. -k

93% of the National Academy of Science are atheists The notion that the text Betsy has quoted is a declaration of an official position on the existence of God is hilarious. -k

Maricopa County, home to about 4 million of Arizona's 7 million residents, apparently reduced the number of polling stations from over 200 to 60 after the 2013 Supreme Court ruling removed DoJ oversight from state changes to elections. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/arizona-primary-voter-turnout-long-lines/82125816/ Sounds like the same thing they do in Florida every election. "Folks, we're shocked-- shocked, I tell you! That we had 6 hour wait times at certain polling stations yet again this year! But I assure you, we're studying this really closely, and I promise we'll do better next election! I really mean it this time!" -k

I think Betsy is the only person who could make the leap from "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe" to the conclusion that the National Academy of Science has declared that God exists. -k

I imagine many would say John Lennon, but for me it's Lemmy Kilmister (peace be upon him). -k

It doesn't say what you wish it did. It indicates that many scientists believe that god created the universe in a way compatible with scientific observations. It doesn't mean that Trying to represent that as the general consensus is false. It's purpose is to explain that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible beliefs, not that this is what the scientific consensus is. Trying to make it say more than that is The quote you've provided is an excerpt from this publication. The first statement after the credits is this: The portion you've quoted is from page 7 of this publication, and it's the prefix to a beat-down of young earth creationists, 6 Days creation, Great Flood geology, Adam's rib, etc. The main message here is: the facts are the facts. The universe is expanding. Evolution happened. You can still believe that god was the ultimate force driving all of this if you want. -k

Long time no see. The National Academy of Sciences is not declaring that God is the creator of the universe. They are explaining that god and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You've misinterpreted the material you've quoted to support your agenda. "Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." The remarkable nature of the universe is revealed by science. God isn't. None of the material you've provided actually supports the claim that the NAS has endorsed the existence of god or "theistic evolution" as the explanation for the universe. They are simply pointing out that a view-- "theistic evolution"-- exists in which god formed the universe in a way that's not contradictory to the facts science has learned. -k

We foolishly let "Trudeau Jr" slide because we didn't think August meant any harm. But thanks to Overthere, it's become clear that this was a big error in judgment. You don't get to refer to the Prime Minister as "Junior". End. Of. Story. And because we can't have different rules for different members, August doesn't get to use Trudeau Jr anymore either. Sorry, August. You can find some other way of disambiguating Justin from his father Pierre. Perhaps something like ... their first names? Or would that just be too radical? I am sure that some people will reflect back to Olden Times to point out some instance where they feel the rules weren't applied evenly. I'm sure there are many. But the blown calls of the past are not a good reason to keep blowing calls. Let's move on. -k

Press the report button.

Sounds like Mr Moore is now polishing up his resume. Regarding his comments... Federer and Nadal might be the two biggest names in tennis, but I imagine the third biggest name in tennis is Serena Williams, not Novak Djokovic. When the three of them have retired, tennis is going to have a real shortage of recognizable names to put on the marquee. -k

Yes, this is clearly being used derisively, and is clearly not acceptable. This is cut and dried. It will no longer be allowed. -k

I have already given my view on "Trudeau Jr". I will leave Charles and Charles Jr to discuss their ruling on that. -k

Policing flagrant violations is easy. Images and embedded video get policed efficiently because they don't take any discussion or judgment in most cases. Where as with Argus's thread, I get that the content of his OP might have made people angry or uncomfortable, but we aren't going to get into the business of attempting to regulate discomfort. As with the Nancy Reagan threads. The content made some members pretty angry, but the discussion was not against the rules. People have taken Argus's post in constructive directions, which was the whole point. If your idea of decorum is that we should take stop threads that might make people feel angry or uncomfortable, it's not going to happen. We aren't going to attempt to create decorum by squashing everything that might turn ugly. What we ask instead that you fine folks, the valued members of the forum, create decorum by responding to ideas in a reasoned, mature way. -k