Isn't that the (not)point of your entire approach? That "To be, or not to be", is as meaningful as asdfgoihvoneqrgqeorngqerinov?
How do you ever reach escape velocity from your Singularity Of Daftness?
What if the magazine fell out and the ammo sprayed all over the ground?
Are your rifle magazines made out of thin glass?
Just curious, because the ones I use don't shatter when they hit the floor, and I've never actually heard of one spraying ammo all over the ground from being dropped....
1. This is a team effort. I'm doing this in conjunction with damn_registrars. I'm willing to give this tract more than a casual skim, but only if those at least posing as sympathizers with Marx & Engels are playing along. That is, I'll read this text, but not as an example of stupid human tricks, m'kay?
2. Participants shall capture the "next few" paragraphs, up to ~300 words or so, such that we're including and analyzing a
Note, by the by, that not a single weapon banned under the various "assault weapon bans" fits your definition....
That would have been true last decade. It's changed.
Here's the point: you need first to pray for the understanding of yourself, if you want to even begin to fathom god.
What sense does that even make? To whom would such a prayer be directed? What would the content be? I'm having a hard time remembering that I am the idiot here.
No, a competent reader wouldn't spitefully request a lmgtfy.com link. Go ahead and try Google. Hell, sofosbuvir is in the mainstream media, ffs.
I provided two examples of big pharma drugs that can cure cancer, the evidence for which is trivially confirmable. I didn't bother giving links, because as I said, most people making these aspersions against big pharma and their alleged "non cure" conspiracies have already made up their minds and won't be convinced by facts or peer-reviewed studies.
It's true. I misparsed the quote block while reading your post. Enjoy the violent agreement.
I don't know that United States. The US in this universe increased emissions 1990-2012.
They first round of the Kyoto Protocol did not require absolute reduction, just slower growth. The US, which did not sign the protocol, increased emissions by less than most of the countries that did. The main reason was a huge increase in shale gas production, displacing coal.
When other countries reduce their carbon footprints, what's the increased incentive for the US and China to reduce theirs?
Shale gas is cheaper than coal.
LED bulbs pay for themselves in six months.
Electric cars will soon have a TCO lower than gas.
Technological improvements and market economics have reduced CO2 by far more than government decrees.
What's so hard to fathom about the simple fact that many small changes add up to big changes, and thus different species ?
It is not hard to fathom. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that it is true. If you are an atheist, there is no reasonable alternative explanation. But we have not actually observed it happening, and it is not something that should just be accepted as true "beyond the shadow of a doubt". Science doesn't work that way. Small changes can add up to big changes. But sometimes they don't. Something should not be accepted as absolutely unquestionably true just because it is "fathomable".
This is why it's so ridiculous for religious nuts to argue against evolution.
Perhaps because people like you refer to them as "nuts" and dismiss their views as "ridiculous", when you clearly don't even understand what their views are. Christian (and Muslim) fundamentalists do not deny that evolution occurs. There is clear and obvious evidence that it does, and they accept that. What they do NOT accept is that evolution can lead to the emergence of new species, and (more importantly) is the sole explanation for the existence of humans. There is strong evidence that they are wrong, but there is not any absolute proof. There is fossil evidence, and genetic evidence, for "macro-evolution", but we have never actually observed the emergence of a new species except in the case of bacteria, and even in that case it was due to artificial human-applied selective pressure. There is nothing that we know "beyond the shadow of a doubt". You don't convince people that appeal to absolutes by appealing to them yourself. There is at least a shadow of a doubt that the Sun will come up tomorrow morning.
Well then, please explain why "Big Pharma" has delivered cures for multiple kinds of cancer over the last couple of decades.
Go ahead, we're all waiting...
Sofosbuvir. (remember, the endgame of hep c is liver cancer, so this is both a viral cure and a cancer cure by preventing that outcome)
That's off the top of my head. I'd put effort into searching for more, but we both know you're just going to move the goalposts.
Apply pressure and see if the species DOES NOT adapt to the pressure.
That does not prove evolution by natural selection. Lamarkism would be an alternative explanation. Darwinian evolution not only predicts that species will evolve, put predicts a specific mechanism: The better adapted individuals reproduce more than the less adapted.
Most evolution is believed to be Darwinian, but there are Lamarckian adaptions such as epigenetic inheritance. Life is complicated.