Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming. So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. Abiogenesis is self-destructive. Rust only gets worse with time. Any supposed life form would only be destroyed by age. It certainly would not wait around long enough to have the next atom or molecule added to take it the next step towards life. The whole abiogenesis/evolution idea works exactly backwards from anything seen in nature, from this simple fact alone. Regarding probability math, any debunking of it has not taken into account the complexity of nature as it really is. Before there was a first living cell, inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form. Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts. All of the genetic changes in life can be explained by other reasoning as well as the evolution story. Most of these changes fit either built in self-protection, or else the failure of that protection. On the outside it might look like evolution, but at the level of clarity, it is simply success or failure of protection mechanisms that are fighting the natural breakdown that occurs... from entropy if not some other chemical breakdown process. Cause and effect show that this is what is happening to all complexity, via entropy if nothing else. But, even if entropy were not happening, cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level and beyond, show that the whole universe is programmed to happen just the way it "happens." There is no accidental happenings so that something like evolution might exist. No evolution. Simply built in protection mechanisms. At best, no change at all. Otherwise, devolution. |
|
|
|
In addition, paying tax is a responsibility to each of the citizens in a particular country inorder to contribute something to its growth which not just you but everyone will also benefit from it. It is true that those who are handling taxes are the ones who committed theft but not the tax itself. Just think about the roads, the facilities and other that have been made possible through taxes that benefits you and others either directly or indirectly is a proof that in order for a country to survuve and improve itself it needs tax by the help of its people.
That's why it is beneficial to not be a citizen of a country. Simply live on the land. Being domeciled on the land isn't even residing in the country. |
|
|
|
I support freedom of gun ownership. At home I have an AK-47, but I only shoot at targets. Why should I risk my life because several times a year a weapon falls into the hands of inadequate people. Besides, this happens in gun free zones. Maybe before we fight with the weapons easier to try to get rid of gun free zones.
Do you have any family left? Just joking.  |
|
|
|
Out of the normal relaxed atheism, as it used to be, we seams to have a growing branch of a special "atheists" that act as much as the next religious fanatic!
This "special atheists", pretty much common at US, so we can call them "American Atheists" (or AA) act like if they can't live without strict good and evil, they uphold their beliefs as it were the supreme truth, like to call it facts and often scientific facts to things science doesn't even come close to, such as human philosophic affairs.
Let's then start to examine this "new religion":
- It's mostly based on "studies" from "experts".
As result there are now thousands of concurrent "studies", most without any scientific value at all (sample too small, bias interpretation of data, non-repeatability, and so on) and paradoxical to its peers, and here, as religious do, they cherry pick the "studies" they found convenient to their belief.
- Anyone denying "MY" facts is an idiot.
The "supreme morality" of the group makes them so wise... It looks like they don't believe there's no God, but instead there's a job vacancy for being God and they want to apply for it.
- If you're not with us, then you're against us!
This is common ground to religious fanatics, they deal quite harshly to any criticism on their views. Moderation is out of the scope.
- The Dogma
The so called harmful part of religions isn't their crosses, crescents, yin-yangs or whatever symbols they use, isn't also praying - praying is somewhat the psychologist of the poor -, but the dogma: The incontestable truths they are meant to react violently if challenged! And in here, the AA's have a LOT of them!
Some are taking just as "to look opposite of what they recognize as their opponents", for AA's this means Christians, such as being "pro-choice", others are plain bull as feminism, lgbt rights, free-for-all economics and so on...
It won't surprise me that in a short these groups start to resource terrorism.
This is a very wrong religion Do not believe there is a god. Understand there is a real God. Don't simply believe it. Rather, believe what God tells us. |
|
|
|
There you go again. All the time, all the time. Mere talk about rebuttal, without following through by showing any rebuttal that stands. Find a point in my links, and rebut it directly and scientifically with scientific rebuttal, if you can. I kinda think that you have barely looked at what the links say. For a point to be rebutted, it must first be proven. Try that to begin with. That is a false idea. For a point to be rebutted, it must first be suggested. Something that is proven means that all accurate rebuttal has ceased. Cause and effect - proven. Entropy - proven. Complex universe - proven. Existence of God - proven. You would be healthier to accept the proof for God, and then believe what He says. Fighting that which is real actually tears down the health. |
|
|
|
Death is terrorizing. Everybody dies. Terrorism will only end when all people have died. |
|
|
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. |
|
|
|
I don't think so it will work free money means the decrease in the value of money and so the trading and business will also go down. I just want to say not a good idea by MARK. That is exactly what is going to happen. Once the supply of money increases, hyperinflation will follow and the prices of essential commodities will shoot up. The local currency will undergo devaluation, similar to what happened with the Venezuelan Bolivar. The one possible scenario that might work is if people all get free money a little bit at a time. As they get their free money, if they want to work less, and if robots take up the slack, we might finally end up with full pay, and robots doing all the work for free. Of course, this would have to be implemented slowly, a little at a time. |
|
|
|
@ BADecker
I hope I'm not off topic, but here are my two cents :
Over the ages, Gods of all sorts always been an excuse for things humans didn't understood (yet) Ra was rising the sun, Thor the lighting , etc.. etc..
Since then, everytime we learned more about our physical world, those went from gods to mythology. I takes time for sure to people abandon their faith, but History is nothing but proof that a lot of religions had their particular era. Major modern religions are not different , they are just living mythologies, followed by people who rectracted in the last and tiny bubble of unknown about our reality.
When our late descendants will study our era they will mock us and find us primitive.
And another option is possible, that our descendants will be able to prove the existence of the gods and will laugh at us for the fact that we could not do this. Of course, we already proved the existence of God: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Why would our descendants be any more honest by admitting it when we don't seem to want to? I take a bit of time away and BADecker is still quoting himself. Oh well, it's another reason to have a drink! Out of curiosity.... has anyone else quoted your links yet, or does everyone else know your links are full of shit. I see you haven't become any smarter while you were away. You still can't refute or rebut the science that God exists, and that everything exists because of God. Turn to God, now, while you still have time, and save yourself from your own demise. Your links have been rebutted and refuted many times. The only person who doesn't believe that is you. Wake up before it's too late! There you go again. All the time, all the time. Mere talk about rebuttal, without following through by showing any rebuttal that stands. Find a point in my links, and rebut it directly and scientifically with scientific rebuttal, if you can. I kinda think that you have barely looked at what the links say. I think that every person is convinced of something and will arrange his point of view to the last. Though there are times when someone will convince someone, but I think that it's just pointless to do it here. I have repeatedly tried to prove something to someone but I see that people still stand on their own and their opinion is, in their opinion, the most important and most truthful of all. Right! It is only in the midst of great joy, or great pain, that a person will compare his opinions with reality to see what the truth is. Of course, there are a few people who try to be truthful all the time. When a person is really in great pain, then there may even be a clouding of reason and sanity in such moments is very difficult. Therefore What is the truth to know will be even harder. Does a person ever, ever, ever have a completely correct opinion? Great pain or great joy can humble a person enough that he re-thinks his opinions. The result may not be correct. But it CAN bring him to level-headed thinking, because of his need. |
|
|
|
I think its predominantly Americans that have this idea that a society could function without government. In reality its not possible as it would only lead to dictatorship in the long run. You don't say that paying your rent is a unfair, the same as paying a rent for living in the country you live in is also not unfair.
No, Americans don't have that idea. The American Government is set up to look like a civil law government. But it only acts that way until the people jump in, in the form of the jury. The jury overrules all civil laws, and even moral laws. Most people don't understand this simple thing about the American Government... even most Americans. Taxes are formally not supposed to come from income and property taxation... according to the way Government is written. The fact that they do shows how far away from the ideals of basic American law the people have allowed the country to go. |
|
|
|
^^^^^ Love your response. All production workers must work overtime to make up for the money being spent by... er... themselves? The free money they got? Doesn't make any sense.BADdecker, you really need to start to think more and write less. You know where that "free money" is going to come from? The entire idea behind basic income? Taxes. Its hilarious you wrote about taxes being theft (which in some cases they can be argued to indeed be), yet here you jump at the idea for chimera of "free money" handed out by some central, all powerful government. Aw, come on. Now you're just picking on me. Didn't you even read what I said? Just because I didn't say "taxes" right out in the open. How else would the money get from the workers back to themselves. Would it simply jump? Of course it has to be taxes. Didn't you read the rest?You're just picking on me.  I am not picking on you, man, I am daring you to use your common sense and faith. Yes, you specifically, because in other threads you presented yourself as understanding of freedom and hard work. Others here were commie hypocrites betting on bitcoin from beginning, but not you. Workers will pay taxes to central authority to receive small piece of it in return. Thus essentially state will turn everybody into its employees - and those employees will be paying to stay employed. Thats not even amoral, its criminal. If state doesnt need taxes for common basic utilities (health care, infrastructure) then it doesnt need them at all. And I can perfectly understand Zuckerberg for supporting it. To support such massive wealth redistribution of every single income in country, you need a robust database. He can provide for that. For a small fee from your taxes. How the hell do you think oligarchs in my country emerged? Tax payer is the best kind of customer, he never says no. I didn't post the article because I agree with it. I posted it because it was interesting... and to see what people would say. Then you said, above: Its hilarious you wrote about taxes being theft (which in some cases they can be argued to indeed be), yet here you jump at the idea for chimera of "free money" handed out by some central, all powerful government. That wasn't at all what I was saying. I was showing that the idea was kind of ridiculous - a worker working to pay himself free money through taxes. Look above. |
|
|
|
But, but, but... The flat earth is round... at least up to the ice wall. |
|
|
|
^^^^^ Love your response. All production workers must work overtime to make up for the money being spent by... er... themselves? The free money they got? Doesn't make any sense.BADdecker, you really need to start to think more and write less. You know where that "free money" is going to come from? The entire idea behind basic income? Taxes. Its hilarious you wrote about taxes being theft (which in some cases they can be argued to indeed be), yet here you jump at the idea for chimera of "free money" handed out by some central, all powerful government. Aw, come on. Now you're just picking on me. Didn't you even read what I said? Just because I didn't say "taxes" right out in the open. How else would the money get from the workers back to themselves. Would it simply jump? Of course it has to be taxes. Didn't you read the rest?You're just picking on me. |
|
|
|
Wikipedia says that there are only about 3 million people in Mongolia. Other websites agree. How many Mongolian people would be interested in Bitcoin? It's good that those that are interested get some help. But even the metropolitan area of Phoenix Arizona has that many people or more. And most of those people haven't even heard of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
You are such an artist. Researching flat earth, or much of anything else where scientific research is indicated, doesn't have anything to do with Youtube. |
|
|
|
I don't think so it will work free money means the decrease in the value of money and so the trading and business will also go down. I just want to say not a good idea by MARK. Decrease in the value of money is beneficial to the poor. Let's say a poor person earns $10,000 a year. Let's say another person earns $100,000 a year. If they each get $10,000 free, the poor guy doubles his income, while the bigger earner only increases his income by 10%. Is it fair? Perhaps it might be in some cases. That extra $10,000 could certainly lighten the load of the poor guy. And it might even be just the thing that the high-income guy needs to pay up some bills he foolishly made for himself, thinking that his high income would be enough. But few of the people will use their money like Zuckerberg suggests. |
|
|
|
Excessive private ultrasound procedures putting babies' health at risk A recent survey revealed that scanxiety, a phenomenon where expectant mothers undergo multiple ultrasounds, now affects nearly one in three pregnant women in the U.K. Current guidelines in the U.S. and the U.K. call for just two ultrasounds during the 12th and 20th week of pregnancy to monitor the child's condition. "For the last 20 years, it's been quite common for women to access private facilities for scans. Sometimes it's simply for reassurance, or because they don't feel they're getting sufficient scans on the NHS [National Health Service]. Sometimes they're accessing a service that isn't routinely provided, such as 3D and 4D scans. Many are what you might call souvenir scans," Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists spokesman Dr. Christoph Lees said in TheGuardian.com.
The survey by the parenting site ChannelMum.com collected data from 2,000 pregnant mothers and found that a third of pregnant women opted for extra scans, which were largely prompted by anxiety over the health of the fetus. The poll also showed that another one-third of respondents reported undergoing additional scans to monitor the baby without any specific medical reasons. To be more specific: Twenty percent of women were reported to have gone through two sessions, while 18 percent underwent three or more. Furthermore, one in 50 even reported having nine or 10 additional private scans. This equated to more than one ultrasound session per month during the whole duration of pregnancy, the researchers said.
According to the researchers, extra scans cost expectant mothers millions despite not having any medical reason. The survey revealed that private scans cost from 35 British Pounds up to 1,000 British Pounds for a repeat package. The poll also showed that the private scan industry is currently valued at $54 million a year. However, the researchers have warned that some clinics offer scans that last more than 30 minutes, which may potentially harm the unborn child. The experts have also cautioned about the increasing popularity of "pop-up" scanning companies that offer to conduct the ultrasound at home. Some clinics employ unregistered sonographers, the researchers said.
"Current advice by the National Institute For Health and Clinical Excellence is to have an early scan and then a screening scan for anomalies at around 18-20 weeks. These are recommendations based on the available research and takes into account the harm and benefit of scans. Any further scans beyond these recommendations should be clinically indicated and based on the needs of the women and her developing baby. It is of concern that women are needing this extra assurance. It may reflect a need for women to have more confidence in their pregnancy and this type of reassurance and support is, and can, be provided by their midwife. Anxieties caused by reliance on technology can have an impact on a woman's pregnancy, causing undue stress and anxiety," Mervi Jokinen, Practice and Standards Advisor at the Royal College of Midwives, said in DailyMail.co.uk. Read more and click the links at http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-05-28-excessive-private-ultrasound-procedures-putting-babies-health-at-risk.html.
|
|
|
|
Yes my friends despite what these guys think they are all wrong according to BADecker! Seriously dude, you actually think I'm gonna read your nonsense about proof of some magical sky fairy and then somehow think oh yeah all these dumb scientists are wrong because BADecker has indisputable scientific proof that god exists. He says so right here in this bitcointalk thread. and he's been repeating it for past...oh idk 2 years, 24/7 so it must be true!! faceplant Oh yeah almost forgot...DRINK!! (or was that the other badecker delusionism thread? idk... same difference so who cares) Where do I say that scientists are wrong regarding science? It is science law that I express in my links. Science law didn't just spontaneously come into being. It was worked out by scientists, and is upheld by them. Science theory is absolutely good and right in the investigation of science. It is part of the science process. Nobody is talking about some magical sky fairy except you... and a few others like you. The scientific proof for God has been around for a long time. The only reason why scientists don't accept it is that they don't want to. That's not science that they are doing. That's religion. You prove that you have a religious agenda. How? You talk against the scientific proof, but you don't rebut the proof scientifically. Until you rebut the proof, or until you show some science law/fact/truth/principle that rebuts the proof, you are simply full of hot air... just like these other jokers in this forum that think that all their talk is really something, when they don't have anything other than simple noise. |
|
|
|
I remember when conspiracy theorist posting youtube links were laughed out of the building. Now with fake news and no definitive authority, everything has become fair game! Love the chaos! Is fake chaos part of Chaos Theory?  |
|
|
|
@ BADecker
I hope I'm not off topic, but here are my two cents :
Over the ages, Gods of all sorts always been an excuse for things humans didn't understood (yet) Ra was rising the sun, Thor the lighting , etc.. etc..
Since then, everytime we learned more about our physical world, those went from gods to mythology. I takes time for sure to people abandon their faith, but History is nothing but proof that a lot of religions had their particular era. Major modern religions are not different , they are just living mythologies, followed by people who rectracted in the last and tiny bubble of unknown about our reality.
When our late descendants will study our era they will mock us and find us primitive.
And another option is possible, that our descendants will be able to prove the existence of the gods and will laugh at us for the fact that we could not do this. Of course, we already proved the existence of God: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Why would our descendants be any more honest by admitting it when we don't seem to want to? I take a bit of time away and BADecker is still quoting himself. Oh well, it's another reason to have a drink! Out of curiosity.... has anyone else quoted your links yet, or does everyone else know your links are full of shit. I see you haven't become any smarter while you were away. You still can't refute or rebut the science that God exists, and that everything exists because of God. Turn to God, now, while you still have time, and save yourself from your own demise. Your links have been rebutted and refuted many times. The only person who doesn't believe that is you. Wake up before it's too late! There you go again. All the time, all the time. Mere talk about rebuttal, without following through by showing any rebuttal that stands. Find a point in my links, and rebut it directly and scientifically with scientific rebuttal, if you can. I kinda think that you have barely looked at what the links say. I think that every person is convinced of something and will arrange his point of view to the last. Though there are times when someone will convince someone, but I think that it's just pointless to do it here. I have repeatedly tried to prove something to someone but I see that people still stand on their own and their opinion is, in their opinion, the most important and most truthful of all. Right! It is only in the midst of great joy, or great pain, that a person will compare his opinions with reality to see what the truth is. Of course, there are a few people who try to be truthful all the time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
