Deal reached to allow pension plans to cut benefits

[ltorlo64]

ltorlo64, I'm not going to beat this dead horse any further, because I feel we are going in circles here. Can I ask you something though? Do you doubt that these creatures (these seemingly intermediate forms between fish and amphibians) really existed? Regardless of where exactly they fall in the timeline of things?

No, I don’t doubt they existed. What have I ever written that would make you think that?

I mean, your contention here is that all species were created at roughly the same time, that God designed them all exactly as he did on purpose in the beginning, correct?

Correct

If so, why would God have created these intermediate forms? And if they were so perfect in design (according to God's master plan or whatever) why don't we see them around alive today?

Why not? Each organism has its place, each organism performs a function in the environment. Not every organism needs to be as complex as humans.

They were perfect, but the same thing happened to them that happened to us, but for the rest of creation it was not their fault. God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the world, they were the King and Queen of the earth, taking care of the earth and learning of God and His character. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, in actuality, when Adam and Eve gave dominion of the earth to Lucifer, they invited death into the world. This was not because God was mean or exacting revenge. God is the source of life and when Adam and Eve chose Lucifer over God as their master, death was the natural result. This death affected all creation, not just Adam and Eve, meaning that the previously perfect organisms, designed to live forever started to die.

Believe it or not, there are hundreds of millions of religious people -- hundreds of millions of Christians -- who accept evolution by natural selection as just part of God's plan. Maybe -- just maybe -- Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time "God's plan" would be considered mysterious in nature, would it?

I would not have a problem with that if there were something that suggested this other than humans saying they don’t believe God did what He said. Genesis 1 is laid out pretty matter-of-factly as to what happened and on which day. I know there are a lot of people that say, “how do we know how long a day was?” I think this is answered in Genesis 1:3-5. God created light and dark and called the light day and the dark night, and the evening and the morning were the first day. Before Genesis 1:3 there is not accounting of time, after Genesis 1:5, we have day and night, a 24 hour day.

Another reason that I believe the Genesis creation account is to be taken literally is that the rest of the Bible takes the creation story literally. The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 is the most straightforward example. The reason for the Fourth Command (Exodus 20:8-11), the Sabbath Command, is stated “for in 6 days the Lord made the Heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the Seventh Day.” There is nothing there to suggest that a day was anything other than a day and that the creation narrative is to be taken any other way than literally.

As for all those people believing in evolution or at least part of evolution, what is that to me? I mean, how many times do we see large groups of people getting lead astray by something that sounds good (look at Ferguson for example). The Bible also provides a many examples of this. The book of Judges, most of I and II Chronicles, and most of the books of prophesy (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets) tell stories and give prophesies of what happens when a good portion of the people are led astray. We also have the story of Jesus birth in the New Testament, it was not the millions of Jews who knew where Jesus was being born (though many knew the time for the Messiah was near), it was three wise men from a foreign country, not even Jews, who understood what the prophesies meant. Following the crowd just because they are a crowd is not a good thing to do.

Don’t take me wrong, I am not saying those millions are wrong, but I am saying I do not agree with them. I study this fairly regularly from both a Biblical perspective and from a scientific perspective and I am very confident with my conclusions.

I mean, if God really is that powerful, who are we to say that evolution is outside of the realm of His Will? I mean it's still pretty damn amazing -- all life, even our own, starts out as just one tiny cell. One tiny cell that divides and divides until it forms tissues, then organs, and eventually entire organisms. If we can observe such incredible phenomena happening still in our own species, why is it so far-fetched to consider that maybe all of life started out that simply? Just one single, magnificent cell... blossoming and radiating in so many different ways? Surely it's not beyond God's powers to make it so? Or do you really think God may have been limited to only being able to create everything -- every life-form -- one way from the beginning, never able to change and adapt?

I am not saying that evolution is outside of what God can do. It is not, however, what He says He did do. It seems to me that the people who are limiting God are those who say He did not, and could not, do what He said.

It is definitely within God’s will and His power to make one cell into many different things, as you point out a baby starts as one cell (actually as two cells that become one cell!). Why do you think it is out of the realm of possibility that God would do as He said and create the world in 7 days? Is that out of the realm of possibility of an all powerful, all wise, all creative God?

As for God’s creation not being able to adapt and change, as I already wrote, He designed His creation to adapt to death and decay, something that was not part of creation but was introduced by disobedience. This is, by far, the most extreme adaptation I can think of. But adaptation is not evolution, it is just being able to live in a new environment. Take the spotted owl for example. Environmentalists shut down logging of old growth timber in Washington and Oregon over fear that the spotted owl, which nests in old growth timber, would die off. It turns out that the spotted owls in the areas that were logged just started nesting in bill boards and old buildings. In other words, the spotted owl adapted. We can readily observe adaptation take place in all of creation. What we don’t see is one species become a new or different species (at least without lowering the bar as to what a species is). If God had not designed us, created us, to adapt the entire creation would have died out long, long ago.

[LAGC]

You certainly have a lot vested in your preferred holy book, I will grant you that. The problem though is you are in effect calling the entire field of biology a giant lie. That's a good part of the reason so many younger folks are turning away from fundamentalist religion these days, because that religious narrative flies in the face of all the evidence collected from the field and data generated from the lab, presented so succinctly in every middle school student's life science textbooks. From comparative anatomy, to embryology & development, to the fossil record, to DNA comparisons, to species distribution, to actual evolution observed before our very eyes -- quite a bit of evidence casting serious doubt on that particular religious narrative. Which is why so many religious denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, have come around and reluctantly acknowledged evolution as being part of God's plan, lest their core ideology be cast in doubt altogether.

In the end though, you can believe whatever you want. So long as you keep your religious views outside of science classrooms, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" as Thomas Jefferson so succinctly put it.

Just don't pretend you are any more open-minded than you make me out to be regarding this topic. Because clearly you have made up your mind and are not willing to consider alternative hypotheses, regardless of how much evidence you are offered.

[ltorlo64]

You certainly have a lot vested in your preferred holy book, I will grant you that. The problem though is you are in effect calling the entire field of biology a giant lie.

Not really. Biology includes much more than evolution. There is much good done with a knowledge of biology. This is part of your philosophy that it is all or nothing. Allow all immigration or you are against all immigration. Either have the government take care of the poor or you want the poor to starve. I am certainly not calling the entire field of biology a lie.

That's a good part of the reason so many younger folks are turning away from fundamentalist religion these days, because that religious narrative flies in the face of all the evidence collected from the field and data generated from the lab, presented so succinctly in every middle school student's life science textbooks. From comparative anatomy, to embryology & development, to the fossil record, to DNA comparisons, to species distribution, to actual evolution observed before our very eyes -- quite a bit of evidence casting serious doubt on that particular religious narrative. Which is why so many religious denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, have come around and reluctantly acknowledged evolution as being part of God's plan, lest their core ideology be cast in doubt altogether.

As there are many problems with evolution, one of which we have been discussing but you refuse to acknowledge. I guess it depends on where you want to put your faith, in chance or in a Creator.

In the end though, you can believe whatever you want. So long as you keep your religious views outside of science classrooms, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" as Thomas Jefferson so succinctly put it.

This would be fine if we could keep atheism and humanism out of the classroom. See, the only real way that creation falls apart is for the Creator to not exist. This cannot be proven but we are certainly doing are best to ignore Him. All evidence of creation or intelligent design is excluded, not matter how much science and observation backs it up because it is religious. Evolution, with so much unexplained, so many holes in the theory, so many things about the theory proven wrong by science and observation (take Tiktaalik being transitionary for example), is taught as a fact, beyond question because it is not religious as it excludes god. The problem is, everything is religious in some way and when you remove God you do not make it non-religious, you just change the religion being supported.

Just don't pretend you are any more open-minded than you make me out to be regarding this topic. Because clearly you have made up your mind and are not willing to consider alternative hypotheses, regardless of how much evidence you are offered.

No, clearly I have looked at the pertinent facts, all the pertinent facts, and came to a conclusion, unlike you who disregard the facts that do not fit your predetermined view that there is no God, no Creator. You presented Tiktaalik, I pointed out the grave problems with Tiktaalik, you disregard them as they do not fit what you want to believe. Someday you really need to sit down and take a look at what you believe and why, honestly, you will be very surprised at what you learn about yourself.

[LAGC]

No, clearly I have looked at the pertinent facts, all the pertinent facts, and came to a conclusion,

List what "facts" you have, outside of your preferred holy book, that evolution isn't true.

And explain to all of us why the vast majority of scientists are wrong on this issue, why nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design, including 72 Nobel prize winners.

All you've shown so far is your eagerness to cherry-pick some obscure articles on minute details of one particular facet of fish-to-amphibian evolution, yet those very same scientists that you so eagerly quote don't even agree with your conclusions.

[ltorlo64]

List what "facts" you have, outside of your preferred holy book, that evolution isn't true.

I tell you what. First you list the "facts" you have that show evolution is true. Remember, most of this thread and a good part of another was spent with me pointing out that a fact you presented was not a fact after all.

And explain to all of us why the vast majority of scientists are wrong on this issue, why nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design, including 72 Nobel prize winners.

If you can explain to me why there are some that do feel you are wrong on this issue, including the two I have used to show that Tiktaalik is not transitional, then I will also answer your question. I will give you a hint though, I have already mostly answered this question in a previous post in this thread.

All you've shown so far is your eagerness to cherry-pick some obscure articles on minute details of one particular facet of fish-to-amphibian evolution, yet those very same scientists that you so eagerly quote don't even agree with your conclusions.

No matter how many times you repeat that I cherry picked, it does not change the fact that it was you who cherry picked Tiktaalik (the very definition of obscure), thinking it was the “missing link,” the transitional life form that proved evolution. It is not my fault that Tiktaalik is not the transitional life form and does nothing to further your argument.

Now, unless you have something more to your argument than “no one agrees with you” (which is not true) and you cherry picked data (also proven many times in this thread to be not true), I think this discussion can end.

[LAGC]

I tell you what. First you list the "facts" you have that show evolution is true.

Fair enough. Keeping in mind that science doesn't ever really prove anything "true", but rather tries to make testable predictions based on various hypotheses, and only after many, many successful predictions and attempts at trying to disprove said hypotheses, does a theory actually form and consensus eventually build and concur.

With all that in mind, the strongest lines of evidence scientists currently have supporting evolution revolve around 7 major areas of research:

1) Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry: especially genetics, the study of gene sequences of different species. Not just the fact that we can see gradual changes in DNA sequences between species over time, but just the fact that all life on earth (even bacteria and other single-celled prokaryotes) share the exact same ingredients (nucleotides) that make up the common genetic code shared by all known life on earth.

2) Evidence from comparative anatomy: atavisms (evolutionary throwbacks, such as traits reappearing that had disappeared generations ago), evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development (such as the fact that developing human embryos (pre-fetus) grow discernible tails in the womb that they later shed, etc.), homologous structures, taxonomy, vestigial structures, etc.

3) Evidence from paleontology: not just tetrapods (regardless of whether we nitpick whether Tiktaalik was the first of its kind or not), but many other examples from the fossil record (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils ) in combination with radiometric dating to determine how old such fossils are in each layer of sediment (as I've pointed out before, using such dating techniques a clear pattern emerges: only simpler life-forms show up in the oldest strata, more complex life-forms only gradually over time in the newer strata), etc.

4) Evidence from geographical distribution: data about the presence or absence of species on various continents and islands (biogeography) that provide evidence of common descent and shed light on patterns of speciation, new species arising over time.

5) Evidence from observed natural selection: these include phenomena we can observe right now, within our own very lifetimes, such as the evolution of antibiotic and pesticide resistant bacteria, experiments in the lab involving E. coli, the advent of lactose intolerance in humans, etc.

6) Evidence from speciation: scientists are discovering new biological species all the time, especially in those hotbeds of evolution called rain forests -- scientists have observed numerous examples of speciation in the laboratory and in nature -- for example, there are well over 350,000 described species of beetles alone.

7) Evidence from artificial selection: just the fact that we have so many diverse and unique dog breeds, created by us in such a short period of time: all descendants of the domesticated gray wolf, less than 15,000 years ago; other examples include: genetically modified food and flowers.

Now I can expand on and explain in more detail each of these lines of evidence if you'd like, but last time I offered you thought I was talking down to you and presuming you to be stupid or something. So I leave it up to you. But by all means, feel free to research some of these areas of biology for yourself. If you truly do so with an open mind, you might be surprised at what you learn.

Now, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm completely ignorant when it comes to aircraft carrier operations and/or logistics of such. I defer to those who have the training and experience to know how to manage such things, such as yourself. All I'm saying is that it's okay to acknowledge that perhaps you don't know as much about biology as you think you do -- and there's nothing wrong with that. After all, we can't all be experts at everything in life. That's why we defer to those in the know, those who study these things their entire lives, as a profession. That is why I defer to scientists in those fields to have a pretty good idea what they are talking about, even if I don't understand all the specifics myself.

Evolution really is a fascinating process, and the reality is: for each of us to actually be here, right now, means our ancestors won the genetic lottery countless times over.

Consider that next time you play the lotto.

[ltorlo64]

Fair enough. Keeping in mind that science doesn't ever really prove anything "true", but rather tries to make testable predictions based on various hypotheses, and only after many, many successful predictions and attempts at trying to disprove said hypotheses, does a theory actually form and consensus eventually build and concur.

So, first off, you admit there are no facts that prove evolution to be true, just information that can be used to support a hypothesis (and I use this term as loosely as you are since each of the items you post below can be used to support creation by looking at the information in a different way). It is interesting that you go on to state that the items you post try to make up "testable predictions". As I have read about these, again, two things are evident. First, neither evolution nor creation can be tested to see if the predictions come true. Second, evolution is only supported if you ignore all the available information. For evolutionists anything that does not support the concept is disregarded (at best) or suppressed (at worst) to prevent questions from clouding the predictions.

With all that in mind, the strongest lines of evidence scientists currently have supporting evolution revolve around 7 major areas of research:

You need to learn to use something other than Wikipedia when you “research”.

1) Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry: especially genetics, the study of gene sequences of different species. Not just the fact that we can see gradual changes in DNA sequences between species over time, but just the fact that all life on earth (even bacteria and other single-celled prokaryotes) share the exact same ingredients (nucleotides) that make up the common genetic code shared by all known life on earth.

I will not take the time to answer all these, but if you search Evidence of creation in X (where X is each of the 7 catagories you posted) you will get some of the information that you are ignoring or has been hidden from you. For (1) though take a look at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10...t_p051681.html you will find that physiology and biochemistry causes more problems for evolution, and more as it is studied more, than it answers.

2) Evidence from comparative anatomy: atavisms (evolutionary throwbacks, such as traits reappearing that had disappeared generations ago), evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development (such as the fact that developing human embryos (pre-fetus) grow discernible tails in the womb that they later shed, etc.), homologous structures, taxonomy, vestigial structures, etc.

3) Evidence from paleontology: not just tetrapods (regardless of whether we nitpick whether Tiktaalik was the first of its kind or not), but many other examples from the fossil record (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils ) in combination with radiometric dating to determine how old such fossils are in each layer of sediment (as I've pointed out before, using such dating techniques a clear pattern emerges: only simpler life-forms show up in the oldest strata, more complex life-forms only gradually over time in the newer strata), etc.

4) Evidence from geographical distribution: data about the presence or absence of species on various continents and islands (biogeography) that provide evidence of common descent and shed light on patterns of speciation, new species arising over time.

5) Evidence from observed natural selection: these include phenomena we can observe right now, within our own very lifetimes, such as the evolution of antibiotic and pesticide resistant bacteria, experiments in the lab involving E. coli, the advent of lactose intolerance in humans, etc.

6) Evidence from speciation: scientists are discovering new biological species all the time, especially in those hotbeds of evolution called rain forests -- scientists have observed numerous examples of speciation in the laboratory and in nature -- for example, there are well over 350,000 described species of beetles alone.

Number 7 deserves just a moment.

7) Evidence from artificial selection: just the fact that we have so many diverse and unique dog breeds, created by us in such a short period of time: all descendants of the domesticated gray wolf, less than 15,000 years ago; other examples include: genetically modified food and flowers.

Artificial selection is the use of intelligence to bring out desired characteristics. 2 points on this, first this really shows that it takes some kind of intelligence to come up with some kind of change. Second, and this is the big point that you continue to ignore, we cannot by breeding change canines into something else, they are still canines. They may be a new “breed”, but they are still a dog (or a feline, or a bovine, etc)

Now I can expand on and explain in more detail each of these lines of evidence if you'd like, but last time I offered you thought I was talking down to you and presuming you to be stupid or something.

This was only because you were talking down to me.

So I leave it up to you. But by all means, feel free to research some of these areas of biology for yourself. If you truly do so with an open mind, you might be surprised at what you learn.

As I have shown above, I have researched this, more than I have posted here. I have posted information in the hopes that you will do some research of your own. I do not think you will, but the information is available if you choose to use it.

One more thing, you realize that there are other areas of science that deal with evolution besides biology. It helps to keep this in mind when looking at the evidence. Biologists do not necessarily have the best education to interpret all the information available. You could say they get tunnel vision.

All I'm saying is that it's okay to acknowledge that perhaps you don't know as much about biology as you think you do -- and there's nothing wrong with that. After all, we can't all be experts at everything in life.

The only person in this discussion who has set themselves up as an expert on biology is you. Why is it not acceptable for you to acknowledge that perhaps you don’t know as much about biology as you think you do? Is it because you believe in evolution and I believe in creation and as such you must be smarter and an expert in biology? If this is true, this may be showing another area of prejudice that you should deal with.

[5.56NATO]

This vid is an excellent exposition on what has been set up for you making good on your banks gambling losses;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b2b_1419446543

[LAGC]

ltorlo64, I'll respond to you after the holiday, probably from work Thursday or Friday night since I'm on break from school and have no homework to keep me busy. I don't want you to be spending hours tomorrow on Christmas Day hammering out a response or anything.

Have a Merry X-mas, all. Hope you get to spend some time with family.

[ltorlo64]

ltorlo64, I'll respond to you after the holiday, probably from work Thursday or Friday night since I'm on break from school and have no homework to keep me busy. I don't want you to be spending hours tomorrow on Christmas Day hammering out a response or anything.

Have a Merry X-mas, all. Hope you get to spend some time with family.

Thanks. Same to you. Don't bother responding, I think we have wrung about as much fun from this as we can, especially considering this thread was about pensions!

[5.56NATO]

A Changing of the Financial Guard

The nations presently running from our petrodollar are India, China, Iran, Japan, South Africa and Australia have signed their own trade agreements and their currency of choice is no longer the dollar!

We are all familiar with the concept of inflation, which is the intentional byproduct of the Federal Reserve. But I am not just talking inflation, I’m speaking about hyperinflation which is caused by the collapse of the value of the currency resulting in runaway prices. Here are three examples of how quickly a currency collapse can occur when a nation’s money no longer holds it value:
1. In Weimar Germany, from 1922 – 1923, prices doubled every three days.
2. In the modern era, in Yugoslavia from 1992-94, witnessed prices doubling every34 hours.
3. In Zimbabwe, in the two year period from 2007 – 2008, prices doubled every 25 hours.

History is replete with examples of currency collapses and they typically follow very predictable patterns in which a nation unravels and social chaos, and many times, widespread violence and even genocide becomes part of the national landscape.

What Does a Currency Collapse Look Like?

It can accurately be stated that a lot has been written and rehearsed by the federal government on the topic of the effects of a currency collapse and its subsequent impact on society. NORTHCOM, DHS and FEMA as well as other federal entities have practiced for this eventuality. In each and every scenario, the facts remain the same, human beings and society follows a very predictable pattern of decline when the currency of the day collapses.

When George Soros pulled his money from the S&P 500 and from Bank of America, Citibank and JP Morgan, all Americans should have sat up and taken notice. Generally, when the currency collapses, a stock market crash is right on its heels. Because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a banking meltdown will immediately occur following the collapse of the stock market because since Clinton’s presidency, banks are now allowed to loan money for investment in the stock market and for down payments for homes. It was irresponsible of Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall, because it made surviving an economic Armageddon a near impossibility just as it did during the 1929 crash.

In a currency collapse, your life savings will be wiped out and this is why on November 16th, the G20 declared that your bank account is not money. This put your account in last place in terms of FDIC compensation, and since the FDIC only has about 1% of the money needed to cover a complete collapse, you will never see a dime from the FDIC.

Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy demonstrated that gas stations will be bone dry within two days following a complete collapse. Subsequently, commerce will not move and this includes food. If you are on vacation, you may not make it home. On the second day following a currency collapse, being on the road will be a risky endeavor because of other desperate motorists who will lie in wait to rob other motorists of essential supplies and resources.

With no available fuel, the grocery and drug stores will be empty within one to two days. There will be no food to be had except for that which is decaying in your refrigerator and that in which you can beg, borrow and steal from your neighbors who will also be begging, borrowing and stealing. from your other neighbors. If you have an adequate food and water supply, you better have an adequate gun and ammo supply in order to defend your assets. And when will you sleep? The protection of your critical assets is a 24/7 proposition. Therefore, having a cooperative survival plan is critical. EVEN IF YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS COMING, IF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE STILL ASLEEP, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN!
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/20...ency-collapse/

[l921428x]

another opinion

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investin...und-1419898857