So section 5 was basically the bills as passed and title 15 section 45 is the act in the US code. Do I have that right?

In that case, they are claiming the entire section 45 as the basis of the illegality which makes some sense. After reading it, I saw several places in which it should apply.

Thanks for the explanation. For a minute there, I thought Amazon would be able to get off on a technicality and the FTC was incompetent or something. Turns out it was just me.

And the exact same thing happens with science. Most people do not posess the knowlege,, skill, resources, or time to verify everything science says. They have to take the word for it from some authoritive figure. It is no differnt. The more true something is, the more it might be repeated and hence we are on par with religion again.

Every explaination either becomes turtles all the way down or ends with an i don't know.

Now, i'm not sure a creator is "needed". But it is part of the religion so we got one. Religion doesn't typically search for something to believe, it is told.

No, God did give msn knowlege. Before Adam tasted the apple, God brought all the animals and stuff before him snd told him to name them. He had quite a bit of knowlege before the apple came into play.

Why is that ssme answer that is used to explain the mass for the explosion in the big bang not sufficient to explain a god's existance?

I'll go one better and give you an answer thst ypu cannot refute. We don't know.

You mean just like you? Seriously, thats the most short sided stupid thing anyone could have said given the context.

You do not get to ignore reality in order to impose your own.

They already do this. Check points in Iraq and other countries like Israel are known for being blown up. Buses are more typical because they are enclosed making the blast more effective. The thing is that the death toll usually isn't much higher than a bad car wreck compared to other methods so i think they are targeting the mechanism moreso than what we consider terrorist goals to be. But thats just my limited guess to why they aren't more popular in weatern nations.

Lol.. stop trying to be funny.

We do know that religion (some anyways) holds those principles to be true. The "we know" statemment was clearly qualified by "if we follow the religious examples". Your personal knowlegde of a god or validity of a religious doctrine is completely unimportant to the context. The context is of what people who do belive could understand- not whether they were accurate or not or even convincing.

Please follow along.

Evidently, God failed in giving you reading comprehension and you lack the ability to underdtand simple concepts. Your take on my statement is completely opposite of what was said.

Yes and no. In the strict sense, there will be exceptions but yes, being able to act without regard to the laws of nature that the appearant world is bound by would qualify as supernatural.

Here is the complaint in PDF
http://www.ftc.gov/system/file...

It says section 5(a) but I'm having trouble locating section 5.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

Anyone got any ideas where I'm doing it wrong?

I'm not sure your sentence parses.

Are you saying creationism is not realistic or not realistic for a scientific understanding? I would agree with the later, there not enough information for the former.

Why does there need to be a creationist explanation?

Do you really understand what creation means? It means something was created and in the case of religious creation, everything was. Why was it created? It's hard to say but nothing here is proof that creation doesn't work. It's just evidence that creation isn't needed to work. It's like a car, you can use a key to start it but you can also hot wire it and start without a key. That doesn't mean the key no longer works- it just may no longer be necessary to work in order to start the car.

In fact, if you follow the religious examples (creationist), god gave man dominion over his creations. He also gave him knowledge. And we know in the new testament, that Jesus says God is still working and so was he. So in essence, you would search and find an understanding that didn't require the need for a God to create anything in order to understand it and have dominion (rule) over it. We also know that God gave us free will and you will either go to God or reject him/her. Nothing prevents anything from being created when a being is above the laws of nature that we are bound by and understand, including our understanding of those creations which may be by design of the creation.

Expecting a supernatural explanation for natural events and understandings is not very scientific.

I never really liked USB for sound. Might be another old habit too.

The problem as it was last time I messed with it was that USB power would start causing issues when you chained more devices to it. It was important to make sure you used powered hubs if connecting something (several devices) with more power consumption than a mouse or keyboard.

Perhaps I should give it another look. It's been a while.

This was more obvious when senators were appointed by the states however those states decided- instead of being directly elected by the population of the state.

The house of representatives was supposed to be exactly that, representatives of the people. The senate was supposed to represent the state as originally, the feds were limited in what they could do. The president was supposed to be a common figure head for foreign relations and such while keeping congress in check with his veto or acceptance of bills and the administration of the laws passed.