So, Young Earth Creationists are notoriously dishonest? How about the hypotheses brought about by evolutionists which I have seen which are accepted as being exactly how things have happened? Just like in this video where Dawkins is talking about how the eye evolved: The Evolution of the Eye He talks about how it may have happened and gives an unsustainable hypothesis about the evolution of the eye. He hasn't proved that this is how an eye evolves. He doesn't explain where light sensing cells came from. I know, this is only a short clip and that he doesn't try to go into too much scientific detail. Just because he says it happened this way doesn't mean this is the final answer as to where the eye came from.

So, I'm not sure where you are getting your statement that YECs are notoriously dishonest. Could you give some reasoning and links to sustain your statement?

Have you ever read Creation Magazine? Have you ever read the Journal of Creation (also published by the Creation.com people)? If you haven't, who are you to criticize the source or the content?

Get off your high horse for once. You write as if the person found this on a porn site or something. Instead he found a link which referenced what he was looking for which happened to be on a site which is in opposition to evolution. Does an opposition stance automatically make all content on the site worthless?

Quit being such a closed minded person. Open your mind to the possibilities. If the Creation magazine is to chintzy for you, try the Journal of Creation. Good luck wading through the scientific articles in the Journal of Creation.

Eh, I feel I must make my opinion known here as it may shed some light on the CP topic...

CP is in the eye of the beholder. What this means is that CP is not JUST images or movies of innocent kids being raped. CP could be anything. Images or movies of young kids in nearly any situation.

There are whole sections of the internet dedicated to the "soft porn" of non-nude young boys and girls. These images and movies are often simply suggestive in nature but don't contain anything which would actually be considered to be CP. Many of the sites are disguised as "Modeling" sites and some are even run by the parents of the children who are featured. There often isn't ANY nudity at all on the sites, but the sites charge memberships for access to photo sets and videos. The problem with these sites though is that pedophiles can get their jollies off with these "legal" images and movies. Sure, they aren't CP to the authorities, but they are images of boys and girls of a young age which pedophiles can use in place of their typical nude images.

Most pedophiles aren't much different from any other "porn addict".

Sure, there are pedophiles out there who don't want to live a fantasy life and go out and try to contact children and have sexual relations with them. But I would assume most are just "closet" pedophiles who never leave the fantasy realm.

CP will NEVER go away. Not as long as the digital realm is around. Just like the idea of smothering the pirated music, movies, and software industry. It will always be with us. If the FBI really wants to stop CP, it needs to find a way to prevent the perversion that occurs in the minds of the people who think that CP is not wrong, or it needs to quit shoving it's "Judeo-Christian beliefs" about what is right or wrong in sexual relations between two parties down the throats of the American people (and the rest of the world too). Since they will never find a way to fix the perversion, and they will also never stop trying to tell the American people what their version of right and wrong is, the CP will never go away.

I'm not suggesting that the FBI give up in it's pursuit, but that these bumps in the road they are experiencing are nothing new and they will continue to have difficulty, no matter what angle they use.

Creationists DO care about evidence. That is one reason Creation Ministries International has specific arguments they would prefer that creationists or people who claim to be creationists NOT use. Because the arguments that are listed are used by people who truly don't care about evidence.

Check it out: http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments

For example: " ‘Light was created in transit.’ Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit. But CMI long ago pointed out the problems with this idea.

It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don’t really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.

For example, when a large star explodes as a supernova, we see a neutrino burst before we see the electromagnetic radiation. This is because most neutrinos pass through solid matter as if it were not there, while light is slowed down. This sequence of events carries information recording an apparently real event. So astronomers are perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as a real supernova that exploded according to the laws of physics, with observations as predicted by those same laws.

This is very different from creating Adam as fully grown, looking like a 20-year-old (although incredibly youthful looking), say, although he was really only a few minutes old. Here, there is no deception, because God has told us that He created Adam from the dust, not by growing from an infant. But God has also told us that the stars are real, and that they are signs (Genesis 1:14), not just apparitions from light waves."

Are you sure it is overwhelming?

I highly recommend you check out the article by "Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business - estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation 26:94-100" (A reprint of the article can be found at this website: http://designed-dna.org/ or you can order the Journal of Creation off this website: http://creation.com/)

In the article they explain how the research done by Roy Britten and again by Ebersberger often did not include a third of the information which did not match chimp genomes. When they finished their research the parts they did use matched up around 92%, but if you add in the discarded data you only end up with a match of about 65%.

I don't think the genetic evidence is as overwhelming as you may think it is.

Single button? The "multi-touch" trackpad has options for left and right click without having to use multiple fingers. I turned this option off on the one I use because I prefer the 2 finger approach.

I find it funny when people list their experience with Macs when that experience is more than 5 years old.

Overpriced OS with overpriced anti-virus? You mean Windows right? The OS for Macs is not overpriced, and most Mac users shouldn't need an Anti-virus program. I haven't used an anti-virus program for more than 10 years. I use a Mac, I like their power and simplicity, I like not having to bother with anti-virus software.


If you don't want to pay a lot for a new mac, get a refurbished one off of Apple's store, or get a used one (just be sure you know the specs you are looking for before you trust some craigslist posters).

I ran into the issue of "illegal" submissions and searched how to make them legal.
First, delete the video in question and re-upload it. Tiresome I'm sure, but it will be worth it in the end.
Second, when they try to claim copyright of your birdsongs, dispute the claim that even if the content is somehow copyrighted, that you are using the content under fair use of copyright law. To do that, be sure to include this text:
This video is fair use under U.S. Copyright law because it is (1) noncommercial, (2) transformative in nature, and (3) does not compete with the original work and can not have negative effects on its market.


Or, just contact a lawyer and sue their stupid boldfaced lying socks off.

So many theories as to how this meteor could have changed into life as we know it. Theories about how long the time was before life on earth began. How come it has to be so confusing? At least the creationists seem to like to agree that:
God created the universe
He/She/It did it in less than a million years
God created life as we know it

I'd rather focus on the future than try to figure out the past though...

Ditto.

They keep suing their customers!! I will never buy music again for as long as it is possible (to not have to buy music). Sorry musicians, I will try to support you some other way. Besides, most art isn't about the money in the first place anyways.

I'm kind of sick of all these stupid plots by the US or other countries to undermine Wikileaks. Why can't they just pass off the site as being falsified information and ignore it the way they like to do with many other things that are controversial. By trying to quash the rumors and released documents with scheduled and repeated secretive attacks they are only making the dirty papers released look dirtier. They (the US Government that is) are only making our country look bad. Other countries don't hide what they are doing from the public eye, and when people say, "Hey!! What you are doing is WRONG!!" they just shrug their shoulders and say, "So?". But point one measly finger at the US and say the same thing and they come back with, "Shut up or we'll break all your F**kin fingers, murder your family, destroy your social life, and destroy your organization!!" Give it up US. Take a fu**ing chill pill. Relax. Shrug it off and move on with life. Sure some of the things you did were bad and horrible and the worst sh*t you could have possibly done, but no one is perfect, right?

Or, at least that is my take on things.

Whether or not she broke a law, 24 songs or 24,000 songs, doesn't matter. She should only be charged with her own legal fees.

I have a great problem with the RIAA so viciously attacking their customers with lawsuits as they have. So, they are going to go after the "little guy" who is caught with a couple albums worth of music and are gonna sue their socks off? That would be like getting an electric chair sentence for having possesion of 1/2 gram of marijuana. The legal system is majorly overstepping their bounds with this lawsuit.

I started downloading music because I couldn't afford to purchase full albums in the store or even purchase singles. I found it was also easier than having to wait a couple months before I was at the mall to get those songs that I wanted. Shortly after I began downloading music via P2P the lawsuits started popping up. The RIAA was initially trying to claim that Napster (and P2P in general) was making them lose money. Wow, sharing a few songs is affecting the music industry? I did some research, and found a graphic on the RIAA website which disproved their claim. The issue was not that Napster was stealing their profits, rather, they were simply releasing fewer albums into the marketplace which decreased their revenue. Shortly after I found that graphic, they pulled it off the site so that no one would be able to see it and they could continue their suits.

When I saw that their initial claims were a LIE I decided I would never again legally purchase music. Well, then came along iTunes and the ability to easily and fairly cheaply purchase high quality songs. I have purchased a few from iTunes.

But since the RIAA is still pushing these lawsuits through and punishing the small people, I WILL NEVER PURCHASE MUSIC LEGALLY FROM THE RIAA or an affiliate AGAIN if I can help it.

First I couldn't afford it, now I won't give those greedy rat bastards my money.

I am all for Copyright Law. I believe it is set up to protect the originator from other people maliciously profiting from original works, but to extend it to someone who is committing such a petty crime and trying to make them become worse than penniless is just ludicrous. Especially in this economy.

I am a fan of Wikileaks. I enjoy that they are exposing many injustices in the world such as in Iran after the elections, and the internet censorship lists from Australia. But, why are they only releasing US war documents? Can't they get ahold of documents from other countries involved in the wars? Why is is SO important to only smear the US and their efforts?

I think they are a great resource that can and is easily abused for the wrong purpose. Since they are supposedly an "open medium", posting secretive documents given to them not commonly accessible by the general public it is hard to regulate them. I think the regulation should come in the form of not only the US government being transparent about their plans (without affecting future plans), but other countries as well.

Lets "level" the playing field here.