Did Obama jump the shark??

Otto Maddox wrote: Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast.

You've got to keep your head on a swivel when you are in a vicious cat fight!

come on now people.......the most important rule of this board is to "play nicely with others". We can have discussions without name calling, and personal attacks can't we? If we can't.......well than you are all stupid!

Joe Gearin wrote: come on now people.......the most important rule of this board is to "play nicely with others". We can have discussions without name calling, and personal attacks can't we?

Some of the best discussions on the internet happen on this board when the above is followed. But it is sadly rare.

Dr. Hess wrote: Cutting and pasting from Wikipedia = FAIL. Fascist.

Hess... Chill out.

You and I both know Obama is not a Facist. Stop parroting that stuff that you read on Drudge.

Strizzo wrote: tell me this: what ever happened to that tally that CNN was running to keep track of all of Obamas campaign promises and whether or not he kept them? was it me, or did that just quietly disappear?

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The Politifact OBam-eter..

I am not happy with the way he has kept his promises.

I like turtles!

Wow. The debate rages on and I haven't even weighed in yet!

Is it a closely guarded secret, or did the poster formerly known as Ignorant undergo a name change operation?

Just thought I'd lighten the mood.

Dr. Hess wrote: Yeah, and we're all real glad iggy is in a growth industry that's hiring. What industry is that again? Oh yeah, making bombs to drop on people and the planes to deliver the bombs, killing, maiming, and further creating more jobs for everyone in the artificial limb industry, if only they'd ship to real, genuine poor people.

To be fair the government contracting side of the business has not been in a growth mode for some years. They have done their growing to meet demand but are now in that slow stifling "growth" pattern of wringing cost out of the system. But.. I don't expect you to know that....

Shim wrote: To be fair the government contracting side of the business has not been in a growth mode for some years. They have done their growing to meet demand but are now in that slow stifling "growth" pattern of wringing cost out of the system. But.. I don't expect you to know that....

It would be wise for our elected "representatives" to follow the same example, instead of creating and/or perpetuating programs with opposite ends.

But, you knew that already...........

1988RedT2 wrote: Wow. The debate rages on and I haven't even weighed in yet! Is it a closely guarded secret, or did the poster formerly known as Ignorant undergo a name change operation?

Correct. Twice in this thread. Although, I seem to recall...:

Name change thread

when ignorant aka Big ego aka Shim wrote: I use ignorant or ignorant1 on just about any board I can. I got bored so I changed it. I'll go back, but the rocket from the crypt rocket is staying.

He's not the only one. Several people have changed their names in this thread more often than I change my pants.

I guess it's a method. Slight of hand, name calling, personal attacks are all methods.

oldsaw wrote:

Shim wrote: To be fair the government contracting side of the business has not been in a growth mode for some years. They have done their growing to meet demand but are now in that slow stifling "growth" pattern of wringing cost out of the system. But.. I don't expect you to know that....

It would be wise for our elected "representatives" to follow the same example, instead of creating and/or perpetuating programs with opposite ends. But, you knew that already...........

I can say from an acquisition standpoint that the DCMA is really putting the screws to it's suppliers this year. Gates has said that he will buy the same number of machines as he purchased last year, but he will pay less for them. This has caused some problems with our downstream vendors, but nothing we can't work out. One thing about this industry vs automotive, is that there are very few "low cost sources" we can go to as allowed by the government. In automotive, the idea was ship everything we could to China. In government work, we consider SC, Alabama, and Arkansas to be low cost sources...

SVreX wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: Wow. The debate rages on and I haven't even weighed in yet! Is it a closely guarded secret, or did the poster formerly known as Ignorant undergo a name change operation?

Correct. Twice in this thread. Although, I seem to recall...: Name change thread

when ignorant aka Big ego aka Shim wrote: I use ignorant or ignorant1 on just about any board I can. I got bored so I changed it. I'll go back, but the rocket from the crypt rocket is staying.

He's not the only one. Several people have changed their names in this thread more often than I change my pants. I guess it's a method. Slight of hand, name calling, personal attacks are all methods.

Much more innocent than that.. Today we went to the doctor to get the last ultrasound before the baby is born in January. Since we don't want to know the sex of the child before it is born... Love the surprise and all.. We call the baby "Shim"..

Congratulations, father of Shim.

oldsaw wrote: "We don't belive - we know."? Really? That kind of unequivocal claim is why people "somewhere-in-the-middle" created the phrase "lunatic fringe". A closed mind is like a clogged toilet - when the E36 M3 backs-up, the mess keeps getting worse..... Just sayin!

I completely agree with you about having an open mind. I try very hard to keep an open mind about many things.

We know a lot about the origin of life on Earth. Enough to say without doubt that Creationism is wrong. I don’t think saying so is “lunatic fringe” any more than stating unequivocally that putting your hand in the camp fire will burn you.

I’m not going to get into an argument of specifics because it has been played out many times on many internet forums. It always ends the same way. No one changes their opinion. The logic goes something like this- I say all the evidence supports evolution in some form remarkably close to the theory Darwin presented. Someone else tells me that I can’t know because I wasn’t there and didn’t see it with my own eyes.

Here’s the thing. Human understanding is based on the ability to learn and experience vicariously through others. Written language allows us to learn from people long dead. As I type this I’m listening to music from an iPod playing through a tube amp and a pair of speakers. From scratch, with total personal understanding I could build a working speaker. It wouldn’t sound as good as the one I’m listening to, but I could build it. The tube amp works well because I replaced all the capacitors. I understand the power supply side of a tube amp, but that’s about it. And even at that, I don’t have a primary understanding of exactly how a rectifier tube does what it does or how a capacitor actually stores power. I just know they do because I read it in a book. Someone else does know, so I benefited from their understanding. That allows me to have what we call a “functional understanding”. That’s a big idea. The iPod? It has a battery. I kinda understand how a battery works. The rest might just as well be magic.

So, what does that have to do with Creationism? Well, to make Creationism work, I have to buy into the idea that I can’t know something unless I experience it personally. But I see so many examples all around me that show that line of thinking to be wrong. The music I’m hearing right now is evidence of that. I know the iPod isn’t magic even though I can’t explain how it works. I know that a capacitor does store energy even though I’d be in a tough spot if I had to create one from scratch.

What about other things. The Earth is round. You agree? How do you know? Have you circumnavigated the globe? Have you been in orbit? You don’t have any personal experience with a spherical Earth, so how do you know it exists? How do you know the Sun is at the center of the Solar System? Have you ever see the Solar System from sufficient distance and observed it for sufficient time to have personal experience with a Sun centered Solar System?

So, here’s a mental exercise. I say slavery in the United States never existed. The whole thing is made up by liberals and their revisionist history of a hundred years. How do you know I’m wrong? There are a fair number of, more or less, rational folks who believe the Holocaust never happened. Now, I’m not saying a belief in Creationism is equal to Holocaust denial, just making the point that you know things to be true that you have no personal experience with.

Shoot, I’ll stop now. Another one of my useless books. I sure feel smart now though. By golly, I’m sure everyone on the internet will be impressed with my keen logic skills. My ego is satisfied.

SVreX wrote: Congratulations, father of Shim.

Thanks.. I will post pictures of the ultrasound soon. The new technology is so amazing, we were able to get a 3D image of the babies head.

Shim wrote: Thanks.. I will post pictures of the ultrasound soon. The new technology is so amazing, we were able to get a 3D image of the babies head.

How do you know that's a baby? Could be a trick. Will you really know there is a baby at all untill you see it with your own eyes?

My money is on a baby. Congrats.

Hey fast_eddie_72:

Without trying to get into a Creationist vs Evolutionist debate (because you are right, it will end where it begins), I do think you are miscalculating the most central concept behind Intelligent Design.

The core concept behind Intelligent Design is not that "you can’t know something unless you experience it personally".

Excluding the religious viewpoints, there are more likely three other core concepts: 1) That random positive changes are statistically rare if not impossible occurrences witnessed or measured in the world around us, 2) That evolutionary theory mandates the existence of such random positive occurrences in such vast quantities that they would be normative, not exceptional, and that such vastness of occurrence is a mathematical improbability that would normally be classified as impossible in other statistical sets of data, and 3) That the foundation of many evolutionary findings are confirmed by comparing to other findings presumed to be fact, but ascertained under potentially questionable science (ie: we know THIS to be true because THAT is true. How do we know THAT to be true? Because everyone knows THAT.)

Failure to be open to discuss the potential for other theories discredits evolutionary thinking and makes it look like religious zealousness, instead of science (ie: NO we're not gonna talk about THAT. THAT'S stupid, what are you a religious nut? Everybody knows this is a fact!).

So, yes you are right- there is a great body of evidence. But there are multiple interpretations of that evidence.

And yes, most people believe evolutionary theory to be the more accurate interpretation of that evidence.

All your other examples are things that can be measured or verified. Yes, the Earth is round. Yes, slavery existed in the U.S. Yes, the Holocaust happened. Yes, the Sun is the center of the Solar System.

Origins theories can only be postulized and compared to the remaining existing residual evidence, filtered through an interpretation.

SVreX wrote: Failure to be open to discuss the potential for other theories discredits evolutionary thinking and makes it look like religious zealousness, instead of science (ie: NO we're not gonna talk about THAT. THAT'S stupid, what are you a religious nut? Everybody knows this is a fact!).

Wait - I have a short answer. I could give you a long one, but the short one will work for now.

I didn't say I could prove evolution was right. I just said I could prove Creationism is wrong. Intelligent Design =/= Creationism.*

Okay, short answer over, but not going on to long answer. Just medium answer.

I don't know that some things didn't happen to help evolution along. Microbes from meteors that came from other planets? I can buy that. Don't know. I'd have to do a lot more research. But, no, I don't think it's logical to say that positive mutation is so rare it can't account for everything. We're talking about a long time. A really long time. Like, a really, really long time. In fact, I'd say you wouldn't expect to see any examples of significant change in a life time or many lifetimes. Humans are pretty new in this time line.

Again, I'm not learned enough personally to say that with 100% confidence, just my belief right now based on what I have read and studied. If I felt like doing the google work I'm pretty sure (pretty sure, not positive) I could dig up an example of positive mutation we have observed. Shoot, viruses do it. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are an example I suspect.

I also can't say for sure there isn't an "intelligence" to the Universe that we don't understand that somehow favors life. Dunno, but I think about it a lot. Stopping now before I try to explain my current state of spirituality.

And, hey, it's worth knowing that I didn't get where I am easily or painlessly. I grew up Catholic (still am) and believed it happened the way it said in the Bible. It was a long road and an uncomfortable experience to get where I am now. And.... that's enough for now.

* http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1416

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

I kind of thought you'd offer that.

You realize that you are suggesting that the complete picture likely includes a component for which there is little or no evidence at this point. But it "must be out there". Microbe, meteor, whatever.

"Surely, there MUST be something to prove the things I assume to be right that I can't prove, right?"

That's when it gets to sounding like religion.

Again, not picking a fight. Just trying to show what some of the other guys were talking about.

SVreX wrote: You realize that you are suggesting that the complete picture likely includes a component for which there is little or no evidence at this point. But it "must be out there". Microbe, meteor, whatever.

Uh, no. What are you talking about? I didn't say the likely answer "likely includes" anything. I said that evolution can indeed account for anything. I simply recognized that there are other ideas I could consider. Creationism just isn't one of them. You're kinda changing the rules. If I say evolution is right, and that's that - I'm closed minded. If I say I can consider other ideas - well there's little or no evidence. You're building a catch 22 that isn't founded on anything.

Again, all I said was I am 100% sure and can prove that Creationism is wrong. Period.

Can't see this going anywhere good. I'm out. We'll agree to disagree. Little or no evidence? Wow. Ummmm.

Have a great day!

Looked like that was what you said. Sorry if I misread you.

OK, so you are allowing for the possibility of Intelligent Design, but you can prove Creationism to be wrong.

But the only difference is existence of (or at least belief in) a deity (isn't that what your links say?).

Are you saying you can prove there is no God?

You said you could prove Creationism to be wrong. I was interested to hear.

Sorry to offend.

SVreX wrote: You said you could prove Creationism to be wrong. I was interested to hear. Sorry to offend.

No, not offended. But I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had here. I don't think you meant anything by it. I'm sure you have strong beliefs and there's little point in challanging them.

I really enjoy a spirited discussion when we can stay on topic and respectfully discuss a point. More often than not, these things degenerate pretty quickly. They quit being about making a point and start being about some kinda "gotcha". At that point we're not talking about an issue anymore. We're just playing some "I'm right and you're wrong" game. I've played that game a lot, and really, I'm pretty good at it. But I'm kinda done with it.

I won't change your mind. When I say I don't want to invest the time in the research, I am not saying "Surely, there MUST be something to prove the things I assume to be right that I can't prove, right?" I just don't care to invest that much effort in a discussion that won't change anyone's mind.

I didn't say I could prove there is no God and your gross oversimplification of the difference between Creation and ID is non sequitur. That is not what the links I provided say and that is not my understanding of the difference. That question wasn't designed to garner any information, but simply to try to paint me into a corner. I could have a battle of rhetorical skills with you, but I choose not to.

For the record, I no more believe in any popular notion of ID than I do in the Tooth Fairy.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I thought this might help:

Worlds Without End