Here on Earth and not Planet Black and White, there is thing called, "correct response to a problem". Here on Earth, we handout measured punishments based on the actually crime committed and the damage done to the victim. The offender in this case stole 5 cents of electricity. Which, while technically is a crime, is not a large one and not one worth the time of a police officer. If, for some reason, it did come to the attention of a police officer, they should have issued a warning since that may have all that is needed. Having a state employee deal with this is a net loss to society and its people since the officer could be doing other things like chase murders and rapists.
Whoa there Mullen.. Rein in the horse a bit.
I get so annoyed with you people because you are corrupting the discussion of science and for what, so you can push your personal religious views ahead of science? Your suppression of science causes great harm to this country and to the human species, in general
I have posted a brief outline of the evidence in other posts today, I'm loathed to do it again.
Because you have none.
So where you want to think there is nothing out there, there *is* evidence. I don't suppose it will be enough for you, but never the less it is there. Let me give you a thumbnail sketch of part of it. Life is complex in its higher forms, yet is simple enough to continue to procreate. There are many forms of life, yet they all break down into standard building blocks that imply design. The universe is winding down like an old watch and will eventually run out of entropy, yet here we are.
This means nothing! Just creationist jibber jabber that says nothing and falls into the realm of unobservable, unprovable and untestable. You have stated nothing here which can be proven. You can't say, "It's complex, and yet it reproduces, so that implies there is a creator". Why must complex things have a creator? Why can't over the eons on time these things work themselves out? Yes, they are complex, but over long periods of time and trillions and trillions and trillions of different attempts and combinations, why can't they work themselves out (I know, a overly simple explanation of the process. I know I am using super dumbed down explanation for the forming of life)? Why is that so hard to understand?
And why does the Universe winding down have anything to do with this? Yes, the Universe may some day turn into a realm of space where everything is evenly spaced out and has the same energy, but that may occur BILLIONS years from now. Plenty of time for life to rise and fall and rise again, and fall many many many times.
Again, I'm not claiming proof, only evidence. Evidence that has convinced many throughout the ages. You would assert the negative. That there is no creator, so I believe that the burden of proof does not fall to me but to you. How can you be sure? How do you prove the negative? I don't think you can logically, so I contend that logically you have to accept that a creator might be possible, like it or not.
Have a good holiday.. I'm done here.
Again, you don't get it. You have stated there is a creator. I say, "okay, show your proof", then you give me gibber jabber. I don't have to disprove anything, I can just sit here with thousands of other scientists (or wanna be scientists) and examine your evidence. When you gather enough evidence that passes muster, we will accept the theory of a creator and you will collect your Noble Prize. Your name will be spoken throughout the ages and I will be a fool.
Until then, stop ruining this country by dumbing down our kids with your non-sense.
Why is it so crossways with your thinking to believe in a creator?
Then fucking show your evidence! You have not one little drop of evidence at all. Nothing! You can put out all the assumptions, guesses and straw man arguments you want but in the end, you have ZERO proof of any creator of any kind. You can say, well it all goes back to Big Bang and he created that, but you have ZERO evidence. There is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang, but none for what was before it or what created it. And, if you say, "well, prove me wrong", then you have already lost the debate because when you state a theory or fact, you have to provide it with evidence.
Well since we're using poor metaphors, winning the lottery would be like winning a coin toss about 25 times in a row.
More like a thousand times and then getting struck by lighting right afterward.
There is evidence for the existence of a creator, despite what you likely think.
Well then, show it!
What kills me about creationists is they might acknowledge microevolution but not macroevolution. How do you have micro and never macroevolution? With enough microevolution, you have to have macroevolution.
Creationism is not religion, even if its proponents are sometimes religious. Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved. You have no way to know that there was no creator, you just start with that assumption. Creationists start with an alternate assumption and arrive at different conclusions on some points.
This paragraph is complete Creationist fail. If you have any "presupposes" in science then it is not science. Also, you never disprove anything with science, if you make the claim, YOU have to prove it. You do not make a claim in science and then tell other people to disprove your idea. If you can not put the data and evidence forward, then you are automatically wrong. If you claim there is a creator, prove it, it is not my responsibility to prove it, it is yours.
Your claim that it is teaching religion to teach creationism is a lie. Unless you are willing to stipulate that teaching evolution is tantamount to teaching atheism and thus is teaching religion too. I'm going to bet you won't stipulate that point.
So, do we teach both or do we just teach your religious view?
Just because some refutes your side of the argument does make the other person a subscriber of the opposite of the religion that you are pushing. You are pushing a religious philosophy into an area of science, which is the wrong thing to do. This does make science the realm of Satan and Atheist, it just means you have been called out for pushing your religion into a place it does not belong.
(I wish Amazon hadn't called it AWS. It's not recognizable enough without spelling out Amazon, and you end up effectively writing Amazon Amazon Web Services or people don't know what you're talking about.)
I always call it EC2, and more or less, everyone in the computing business knows what that is.
I'm not sure why you brought up the constitution. It says the feds have the ability not that only the feds can do it. Hell, if that wasn't the case, fed ex and ups couldn't exist.
FedEx and UPS can't deliver mail, just packages. What you are saying is not true.
Me Me Me Me!!!!!
How about this, a minimal floor of insurance quality is set that requires all insurance policies to cover birth control supplies, pre-natal care and other maternity care so that when it is need by the policy holder, they have access to it. With this policy, women can get access to birth control to have children they are ready to and when those children are born, they are born healthier and much less likely to become a tax burden and more likely to become a tax contributor. Which in the long run, lowers all of our taxes and health costs, even for narrow minded Tea Party dweebs. Also, that would just make us a good First World Country and not a central African shit-hole.
Call me a socialist, but making sure someone I don't know has a healthy kid that is not a burden to state, gets educated and thus less likely to pull out a gun and shoot me over $20 is in my best interest.
The displays of multiple fully intact skeletons of Mammoths and the "Wall of Dire Wolves Skulls" is worth the trip alone.