NationStates Jolt Archive

For all those Democrats in the USA out there who think that a socialist democracy would be a better form of government, I'd just like to warn you of what a few years of Labour government did to Britain.

They made our industries inefficient and uncompetitive by giving in to the demands of greedy short-sited unions, which at one stage effectively ran the country, instead of the democratically elected government. When these unions lost their power, many industries collapsed, because they had grown outdated and inefficient.

In education, Labour ruined the once world-renowned British educational system by deciding that as everyone is equal, everyone should be taught together in comprehensive schools. This held back many of the higher achievers, and resulted in a huge fall in standards. Vocational educational was also seen as somewhat inferior, which has resulted in a shortage of tradesmen like plumbers and carpenters.

And finally, on a grander scale, Labour governments did much to undermine Britian's achievements. Instead of boldly going forth into the new world after the war, the Left started to question our past, resulting in an enormous loss of national self-confidence. It was not until the 1980s and the Falklands War that Britain finally regained some self-confidence, and stopped accepting the inevitability of decline. Symptoms of this problem were things like the cancellation of TSR 2 in the 1960s. It would have been the most advanced aircraft in the world, but was cancelled because the Labour government saw it as needless expenditure. Now we can't even build our own fighter planes.

America is a great country; don't let a few moralistic city dwelling idealists screw it up.

So you really would trade that all for being taught creationism in class, huh?

Damn education system, holding me back!

I belong to another forum (centered around the Weebl and Bob toons) which is made up of mostly young and liberal brits. When election time came around, the general consensus was that the Labour party had betrayed its ideals, and that the Lib Dems were the way to go.

Social democracy is demonstratably the best form of government in existence. Most the countries which take the best from socialism and capitalism inevitable create societies in which citizens enjoy the highest standards of living in the world.

You can have a socialist democracy without the world falling apart. The Labour Party messed it up. Another party might not.

So you really would trade that all for being taught creationism in class, huh?

I think economic prosperity, a balanced economy and national cohesion are more important than the odd Texan being taught unprovable nonsense, but we'd just never have that problem in Britain, so I can't say it crossed my mind.

Long live Secular Republicanism!

Yeah, the 80s really were truely great times for everyone

Yeah, the 80s really were truely great times for everyone

Coke for all. Having said that, my knowledge of the 80's comes from the last 20 minutes of Goodfellas.

Social democracy is demonstratably the best form of government in existence. Most the countries which take the best from socialism and capitalism inevitable create societies in which citizens enjoy the highest standards of living in the world.

Perhaps you could name a country which has had social democracy for a decent length of time (50 years plus) where the citizens have such a great standard of living.

Look at France and Germany, I hear you cry. They have 12% unemployment, and a lower per capita GDP than the UK or America.

Perhaps you could name a country which has had social democracy for a decent length of time (50 years plus) where the citizens have such a great standard of living.

Look at France and Germany, I hear you cry. They have 12% unemployment, and a lower per capita GDP than the UK or America.

France and Germany are loser nations, thats why they have such sucky statistics. Neither of them can win a war. It's a symptom of lameness.

I think economic prosperity, a balanced economy and national cohesion are more important than the odd Texan being taught unprovable nonsense, but we'd just never have that problem in Britain, so I can't say it crossed my mind.

Long live Secular Republicanism!Exactly. You DON'T have that problem. It's not just some odd Texan that learns it. I've got too many good friends that say "I dunno. I've learned of both and I liked creationism better..." My own dad is one of those people... :(

Perhaps you could name a country which has had social democracy for a decent length of time (50 years plus) where the citizens have such a great standard of living.

Look at France and Germany, I hear you cry. They have 12% unemployment, and a lower per capita GDP than the UK or America.Sweden.

Exactly. You DON'T have that problem. It's not just some odd Texan that learns it. I've got too many good friends that say "I dunno. I've learned of both and I liked creationism better..." My own dad is one of those people... :(

It's not my fault there are plenty of stupid Americans! But more seriously... doesn't teaching creationism violate the constitution? To be secular and all that...

Perhaps you could name a country which has had social democracy for a decent length of time (50 years plus) where the citizens have such a great standard of living.
Sweden (social democrats in power almost continuously since 1920).

Sweden (social democrats in power almost continuously since 1920).

Sweden has the advantage of never having had to exert itself to fight fascism or communism... and besides, what has sweden accomplished since 1920?

Exactly. You DON'T have that problem. It's not just some odd Texan that learns it. I've got too many good friends that say "I dunno. I've learned of both and I liked creationism better..." My own dad is one of those people... :(
That's strange to me...the only time I was ever taught creationism was when we read Genesis in RE, and even then it was explained as being a metaphor for the then unknown development of the earth.

Sweden has the advantage of never having had to exert itself to fight fascism or communism... and besides, what has sweden accomplished since 1920?
Volvos.
ABBA.
Fass.

Creationism was pretty much skipped by my RE teacher.

Volvos.

Fass.

How could you forget ABBA?

*sarcasm alert*

Volvos.

Fass.

Volvos= rubbish.

Fass= scary.

How could you forget ABBA?

*sarcasm alert*
I actually added that in at about the same time as you posted that :)

Great minds think alike...

what has sweden accomplished since 1920?

Refused.

Refused.

refused what exactly?

Don't they hold the Nobel Prize awards in Sweden?

I'll be heartbroken if you say it's Norway.

It's not my fault there are plenty of stupid Americans! But more seriously... doesn't teaching creationism violate the constitution? To be secular and all that...

It shouldn't be. If Evolution is taught, all theories should be taught (including creationism)

creationism isn't a theory, man.

It shouldn't be. If Evolution is taught, all theories should be taught (including creationism)
All theories? Including the one I just made up?

It shouldn't be. If Evolution is taught, all theories should be taught (including creationism)

Does that mean the creation theory of the ancient walla walla lumpa tribe needs to be taught as well? It's got just as much evidence as the Christian version.

creationism isn't a theory, man.

In reality, it is a theory.

Let me put it another way,

Any valid theory from alians to Evolution to Creationism.

refused what exactly?

I am shocked and apalled at this level of ignorance.

;) :D

http://www.burningheart.com/refused/

In reality, it is a theory.

In reality, it's hokum. If that goes, are we supposed to teach kids that babies come from storks, because it's a theory?

Let me put it another way,

Any valid theory from alians to Evolution to Creationism.

There is nothing valid about Creationism in scientific terms. It is not a scientific theory and has no business is Science lessons. It is also against my religion.

Let me put it another way,

Any valid theory from alians to Evolution to Creationism.

Key word: VALID. Evidence for intelligent design, s'il vous plait.

For all those Democrats in the USA out there who think that a socialist democracy would be a better form of government, I'd just like to warn you of what a few years of Labour government did to Britain.

They made our industries inefficient and uncompetitive by giving in to the demands of greedy short-sited unions, which at one stage effectively ran the country, instead of the democratically elected government. When these unions lost their power, many industries collapsed, because they had grown outdated and inefficient.

In education, Labour ruined the once world-renowned British educational system by deciding that as everyone is equal, everyone should be taught together in comprehensive schools. This held back many of the higher achievers, and resulted in a huge fall in standards. Vocational educational was also seen as somewhat inferior, which has resulted in a shortage of tradesmen like plumbers and carpenters.

And finally, on a grander scale, Labour governments did much to undermine Britian's achievements. Instead of boldly going forth into the new world after the war, the Left started to question our past, resulting in an enormous loss of national self-confidence. It was not until the 1980s and the Falklands War that Britain finally regained some self-confidence, and stopped accepting the inevitability of decline. Symptoms of this problem were things like the cancellation of TSR 2 in the 1960s. It would have been the most advanced aircraft in the world, but was cancelled because the Labour government saw it as needless expenditure. Now we can't even build our own fighter planes.

America is a great country; don't let a few moralistic city dwelling idealists screw it up.

...a few moralistic idealists and a whole army of lazy bums. hehe

In reality, it is a theory.
Theories, in general, are supported by facts and evidence.

There is nothing valid about Creationism in scientific terms. It is not a scientific theory and has no business is Science lessons. It is also against my religion.

explain to me how the first atoms came to be

without an everlasting being to make them, just how did they come to be?

if you want a turkey sandwich, do you simply think about it and then wait for the pieces of bread, mayo, turkey (etc.) to float toward each other until they collide and form said sandwich?

or do you have to make it yourself because they can't do ANYTHING without your involvement?

if particles drifted together and formed the big bang, fine... but WHAT CAUSED THEM TO MOVE... and WHAT CAUSED THEM TO BE?

i'll wait patiently...

In reality, it's hokum. If that goes, are we supposed to teach kids that babies come from storks, because it's a theory?

Actually, science has proven that babies come from having sex so no, you can't teach that since science has already proven where babies come from.


There is nothing valid about Creationism in scientific terms. It is not a scientific theory and has no business is Science lessons. It is also against my religion.

Then in that case, lets eliminate all other theories regarding creation of the world.

In reality, it is a theory.


Do you not understand the criteria for a theory?

like, it has to be a hypothesis that gets supported by data, and then more data, and then more data, and some more, all whilst not being disproven in the process. Over a period of many years. there's no data supporting creationism as a theory.

explain to me how the first atoms came to be

without an everlasting being to make them, just how did they come to be?

i'll wait patiently...
How did the being come to exist to make them?

explain to me how the first atoms came to be

without an everlasting being to make them, just how did they come to be?

i'll wait patiently...

I don't know. And frankly, I can't see of what relevance it is to anyone.

It shouldn't be. If Evolution is taught, all theories should be taught (including creationism)

See the problem is... creationism has no place in a science class.. because it does not follow the scientific method by which to aproach problems.. With this, neither does Intellegent design.. and if you put this into a sceince class.. you would have to incorporate all of philosophy into a science class including crap like Descarts. you may not have had the pleasure of learning him.. but i garantee you.. u dont want to!

Intellegent design is Philosophy.... does philosophy really belong in the science room ?

Evolution is taught in science
Creatism is taught in religous education

everybody wins!

How did the being come to exist to make them?

the being is as old as time

Key word: VALID. Evidence for intelligent design, s'il vous plait.

Is still valid to be taught. Its against my religious principles to have evolution taught. I could sue to have it removed but I'm beyond that point and I don't have to put up with it anymore.

I don't know. And frankly, I can't see of what relevance it is to anyone.

someone said that creationism was bunk...

i want that person to prove it.

Then in that case, lets eliminate all other theories regarding creation of the world.

There is no need to eliminate anything. There is a theory that the universe was sneezed out by a giant elephant, riding on the back of a giant turtle floating through space. I don't expect this to be taught in Biology or Physics, but if it is included in a Religious Studies or Philosophy syllabus as a matter of discussion, I won't complain.

the being is as old as time
Again, evidence please.

I just noticed you're from Nashville, in Tenessee. Are your mother and sister ever seen together at the same time?

explain to me how the first atoms came to be

without an everlasting being to make them, just how did they come to be?

if you want a turkey sandwich, do you simply think about it and then wait for the pieces of bread, mayo, turkey (etc.) to float toward each other until they collide and form said sandwich?

or do you have to make it yourself because they can't do ANYTHING without your involvement?

if particles drifted together and formed the big bang, fine... but WHAT CAUSED THEM TO MOVE... and WHAT CAUSED THEM TO BE?

i'll wait patiently...


I always like to think of it like the whole "Equilibrium" way. There was nothing, but because there was nothing, that forced something to pop into existence. No higher being required. Actually, the thing I wonder is, how did God come to be?

(Note: That's not really my explanation to your question. Just something I usually write in to fill some gap I can't actually fill with some real answers. :p )

EDIT: Just what does any of these "Evo/Cre" things have to do with the topic anyway. :confused:

I don't know. And frankly, I can't see of what relevance it is to anyone.

Actually, it has enormous relevence. Where did the first atoms come from?

explain to me how the first atoms came to be

without an everlasting being to make them, just how did they come to be?

if you want a turkey sandwich, do you simply think about it and then wait for the pieces of bread, mayo, turkey (etc.) to float toward each other until they collide and form said sandwich?

or do you have to make it yourself because they can't do ANYTHING without your involvement?

if particles drifted together and formed the big bang, fine... but WHAT CAUSED THEM TO MOVE... and WHAT CAUSED THEM TO BE?

i'll wait patiently...

there's no eveidence that there was anything before the big bang. the big bang begun stuff. there weren't, according to what we've learned of the nature of the universe over the past decades, any particles to drift before the big bang. there isn't a before the big bang in universe terms.

I just noticed you're from Nashville, in Tenessee. Are your mother and sister ever seen together at the same time?

My gf is actually from TN and I do find this offensive, not to mention off topic. Nice stereotype too.

Actually, it has enormous relevence. Where did the first atoms come from?

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate the relevance and importance of knowing where they came from.

there's no eveidence that there was anything before the big bang. the big bang begun stuff. there weren't, according to what we've learned of the nature of the universe over the past decades, any particles to drift before the big bang. there isn't a before the big bang in universe terms.

So how did the big bang happen? Where did the materials come from to cause the big bang?

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate the relevance and importance of knowing where they came from.

It centers around this whole debate. Didn't you know that? Everything is made of atoms. So where did the atoms come from that began everything?

the being is as old as time
Well, if we are using that excuse, the atoms are as old as time.


You do realise that not being able to prove every aspect of evolution (not that the creation of atoms etc. is actually evolution, but that's another conversation) doesn't automatically make creationism true?

It centers around this whole debate. Didn't you know that? Everything is made of atoms. So where did the atoms come from that began everything?

Are you not reading my posts...

I'll put it a simpler way. Why do we need to know where the first atoms came from?

the being is as old as time
who created time ?

In reality, it is a theory.
No, it's not a scientific theory it's religious doctrine.

Actually, it has enormous relevence. Where did the first atoms come from?
Something nobody can possibly prove on an internet forum, so it is an irrelevent question.

So how did the big bang happen? Where did the materials come from to cause the big bang?

I was always under the immpression that the Big Bang is where these "Materials" come from. Not the other way around. I guess I should do some more reading? :(

someone said that creationism was bunk...

i want that person to prove it.

I'll do that, but if only you can prove that the universe wasn't sneezed out by a giant elephant which was riding through space on the back of an even bigger turtle. Show your working for extra marks.

So how did the big bang happen? Where did the materials come from to cause the big bang?

Go read something. there are many hypotheses floating around, and some of them are rather intriguing. But be patient. We have to work for our knowledge.

Sweden has the advantage of never having had to exert itself to fight fascism or communism... and besides, what has sweden accomplished since 1920?
All you asked for was
a country which has had social democracy for a decent length of time (50 years plus) where the citizens have such a great standard of living
And I gave you an example. Is that so hard to accept?

But I'll answer. Sweden has accomplished a healthy society and a dynamic, competitive economy (also home to several globally successful corporations). I don't that the economies of Britain and America could still be said to be reeling from the exertion of WWII.

Something nobody can possibly prove on an internet forum, so it is an irrelevent question.

Thank God I'm not alone :D

Are you not reading my posts...

I'll put it a simpler way. Why do we need to know where the first atoms came from?

Because it is relevent to this whole damn debate. Didn't you learn anything at all in school?

In order to have a big bang, you need something to set it off. Since everything is made of atoms, how did the big bang occur if there were no atoms to cause such a bang?

I was always under the immpression that the Big Bang is where these "Materials" come from. Not the other way around. I guess I should do some more reading? :(

I would since everything has atoms. I would like to know how the big bang happen if there were no atoms.

In education, Labour ruined the once world-renowned British educational system by deciding that as everyone is equal, everyone should be taught together in comprehensive schools. This held back many of the higher achievers, and resulted in a huge fall in standards. Vocational educational was also seen as somewhat inferior, which has resulted in a shortage of tradesmen like plumbers and carpenters.I suppose you'd agree with me now that things could be screwed up much worse than Labour managed to... :D
It's not my fault there are plenty of stupid Americans! But more seriously... doesn't teaching creationism violate the constitution? To be secular and all that...It shouldn't be. If Evolution is taught, all theories should be taught (including creationism)

It's not my fault there are plenty of stupid Americans! But more seriously... doesn't teaching creationism violate the constitution? To be secular and all that...



Stupid?....

I would since everything has atoms. I would like to know how the big bang happen if there were no atoms.From the Big Bang, also known as the big "Let there be Light"...

Something nobody can possibly prove on an internet forum, so it is an irrelevent question.

But it is relevent to the whole creation thing. Since no one has been able to answer it.... that can mean that creation (which is a theory even if its a religious doctrine) can be taught.

Here’s a question, why do creationists care if someone else is an evolutionists, and why do evolutionists care if someone else is a creationist, and why do we drag it into a debate about socialism?

I would since everything has atoms. I would like to know how the big bang happen if there were no atoms.
Science takes time, something you obviously aren't willing to give it. They have to develop theories, gather evidence etc. answers can't just come on demand when they haven't been worked out yet.

In the 1400s very few people were willing to believe the earth was round because there was little proof. Didn't change the facts of the matter, though.

From the Big Bang, also known as the big "Let there be Light"...

Only there was no light because arc angel Gabriel blew a fuse :D

I'll do that, but if only you can prove that the universe wasn't sneezed out by a giant elephant which was riding through space on the back of an even bigger turtle. Show your working for extra marks.

no, because i haven't said that evolution is bullshit. someone else said that creationism is bullshit, so the burden of proof is on them to prove it.

It makes sense that something/someone MADE the first matter... or whatever it is you want to call the stuff that impacted and led to/became the Big Bang.

Since nobody can prove that the first matter was not created, creationism is not wholly invalid.

besides, the contraction is "you're"

hehe

explain to me how the first atoms came to be

without an everlasting being to make them, just how did they come to be?

if you want a turkey sandwich, do you simply think about it and then wait for the pieces of bread, mayo, turkey (etc.) to float toward each other until they collide and form said sandwich?

or do you have to make it yourself because they can't do ANYTHING without your involvement?

if particles drifted together and formed the big bang, fine... but WHAT CAUSED THEM TO MOVE... and WHAT CAUSED THEM TO BE?

i'll wait patiently...

These are strange questions. Time did not exist before the big bang as time and space aren't mutually exclusive (check out the General Theory of Relativity). Before time existed, how is it possible not to consider that singularity as eternal, and thus without a beginning? If you want to go on about God, there he is. No hocus-pocus necessary.
Why is this lost on creationists?

But it is relevent to the whole creation thing. Since no one has been able to answer it.... that can mean that creation (which is a theory even if its a religious doctrine) can be taught.

It can be taught, just not as Science. Or maybe you'd like the Science teacher to announce before the lecture that Creationism is not a valid scientific theory before commencing?

Here’s a question, why do creationists care if someone else is an evolutionists, and why do evolutionists care if someone else is a creationist, and why do we drag it into a debate about socialism?

It sorta evolved there because of a stupid comment and I didn't help it much. As for your other questions, I don't care if your an evolutionist or not.

But it is relevent to the whole creation thing. Since no one has been able to answer it.... that can mean that creation (which is a theory even if its a religious doctrine) can be taught.
No, it can't, at least not in Science classes anyway. It is not a valid Scientific theory, so it has no place in Science. It is not a theory.

And you do realise that evolution has nothing to do with how atoms first appeared?

I would since everything has atoms. I would like to know how the big bang happen if there were no atoms.

But that's just what I mean though. The big bang is where the atoms came from.

Because it is relevent to this whole damn debate. Didn't you learn anything at all in school?

In order to have a big bang, you need something to set it off. Since everything is made of atoms, how did the big bang occur if there were no atoms to cause such a bang?
- maybe from the matter (sp?) inside a black hole in a previous universe (maybe the same universe, who sais time isn't a giant loop)

- maybe something else than atoms could set the big bang off too, who sais there are no other kinds of stuff than only atoms, after all the big bang didn't occur before, so the 'universe' could be quite different

These are strange questions. Time did not exist before the big bang as time and space aren't mutually exclusive (check out the General Theory of Relativity). Before time existed, how is it possible not to consider that singularity as eternal, and thus without a beginning? If you want to go on about God, there he is. No hocus-pocus necessary.
Why is this lost on creationists?

it's just hard to imagine there being nothing... and intriguing how we came to be.

no time = infinite time

did we create the concept of time by measuring it (may have lost myself with that one. lmao)?

Again, evidence please.

I just noticed you're from Nashville, in Tenessee. Are your mother and sister ever seen together at the same time?



I have a feeling your ignorance will get you banned pretty soon, bigot.

no, because i haven't said that evolution is bullshit. someone else said that creationism is bullshit, so the burden of proof is on them to prove it.

It makes sense that something/someone MADE the first matter... or whatever it is you want to call the stuff that impacted and led to/became the Big Bang.

Even though it is bullshit, I never said that. I said Creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

Since nobody can prove that the first matter was not created, creationism is not wholly invalid.
Since nobody can prove the existence of God, my universe was sneezed out by an elephent theory is not wholly invalid?


besides, the contraction is "you're"


'Show "you're" working' wouldn't make sense.

Your - Belonging to you, e.g. your desk.
You're - You Are, e.g. you're an idiot.

No, it can't, at least not in Science classes anyway. It is not a valid Scientific theory, so it has no place in Science. It is not a theory.

And you do realise that evolution has nothing to do with how atoms first appeared?

Nadkor, give up. He is obviously incapable of understanding the point we're trying to make.

it's just hard to imagine there being nothing... and intriguing how we came to be.

no time = infinite time

did we create the concept of time by measuring it (may have lost myself with that one. lmao)?
Whether you're on the science or creationist side of things, neither believe that there was ever a "nothingness" in the beginning (or more accurately, before the beginning). On the science side I was discussing, time and space are intertwined. So if there's no space (in a singularity), time doesn't exist either.

If I were religious, I'd be using the scientific model to support my arguments all the time! :D

I have a feeling your ignorance will get you banned pretty soon, bigot.

It was a joke. You wouldn't understand my sense of humour, it's out of state.

Is still valid to be taught. Its against my religious principles to have evolution taught. I could sue to have it removed but I'm beyond that point and I don't have to put up with it anymore.

you could sue.. but u would be wasting your money.. Maybe you dont know anything about American law but you have the right to leave or remove your children from science class and suppliment it with whatever program you want including religious education... the same for your child or you leaving when the pledge of allegenance is recited... This is why the Supreme court overturned that travesty of a ruling

Everything is made of atoms. So where did the atoms come from that began everything?
They were sneezed out by a giant elephant, riding on the back of an even larger turtle.* Specious argument, BTW -- evolution deals with the origin of life, not the origin of the universe. Apples to apples, please.

And to try to guide this somewhat back to the topic...the US unemployment numbers are a slick little trick. If your unemployment runs out, or if you're otherwise ineligible, or if you've been down-and-out so long that you've just stopped trying, you're not counted as "unemployed" even though you very obviously are. Our numbers really aren't any better than France or Germany's -- just another case of apples to oranges, comparing only our number of people receiving unemployment benefits to their total number of unemployed.

*Well not really. Truth is, no one knows. There's some evidence in favor of a Big Bang, and no evidence in favor of any of the many creation stories. Science works on evidence.

I'll do that, but if only you can prove that the universe wasn't sneezed out by a giant elephant which was riding through space on the back of an even bigger turtle. Show your working for extra marks.

let's go over this again, Refused Party Program.

"Show your working for extra marks"

you're = you are

your = possessive

so... did you mean to say, "Show (that) you are working for extra marks" or "Show your working (work?) for extra marks"?

Either way, that sentence was poorly worded.

I require no English lessons, thank you. (BA-Journalism/MBA)

You didn't show any working. No extra marks.

You didn't show any working. No extra marks for you.

okay.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

hehe

let's go over this again, Refused Party Program.

"Show your working for extra marks"

you're = you are

your = possessive

so... did you mean to say, "Show (that) you are working for extra marks" or "Show your working (work?) for extra marks"

Either way, poorly worded.

I require no English lessons, thank you. (BA-Journalism/MBA)

There was nothing poorly worded about it, a common thing to see in maths or science exams or to hear in school is "Show your working out."

He was right, don't try and cover your tracks by claiming it was poorly worded.

And it is a generally accepted sign of somebody knowing they are 'losing' a debate when they resort to picking on spelling and grammar.

(sorry, but when I get tired I often become irritable and vain)

They were sneezed out by a giant elephant, riding on the back of an even larger turtle.*

YES!

Another convert to the Church of Lemon Meringue!

*punches the air*

There was nothing poorly worded about it, a common thing to see in maths or science exams or to hear in school is "Show your working out."

He was right, don't try and cover your tracks by claiming it was poorly worded.

And it is a generally accepted sign of somebody knowing they are 'losing' a debate when they resort to picking on spelling and grammar.

never in my educational career did I hear or read the phrase "Show your working out."

I think the equivalent here, as seen on many math exams, is "Show your work."

These are strange questions. Time did not exist before the big bang as time and space aren't mutually exclusive (check out the General Theory of Relativity). Before time existed, how is it possible not to consider that singularity as eternal, and thus without a beginning? If you want to go on about God, there he is. No hocus-pocus necessary.
Why is this lost on creationists?

It isn't lost on them all man...

Someone potty-mouthed Nashville, TN.

I grew up in Wisconsin (does nobody here understand that a person's current address is not necessarily indicative of where he was raised?), which has one of the best public school systems in the United States.

Nonetheless, I am my own grandpa. hehe

never in my educational career did I hear or read the phrase "Show your working out."

I think the equivalent here, as seen on many math exams, is "Show your work."
Well, never in my educational career did I hear or read the phrase "Show your work" :P

Meh, different countries, different sayings.

Well, never in my educational career did I hear or read the phrase "Show your work" :P

Meh, different countries, different sayings.

yeah, go figure. so it was much ado about nothing. thank goodness... i thought I was losing my mind.

YES!

Another convert to the Church of Lemon Meringue!

*punches the air*

well I can't be brought to say anything bad about lemon meringue (love it!), or those with whom she cavorts. hehe

yeah, go figure. so it was much ado about nothing. thank goodness... i thought I was losing my mind.

You know, other meaner posters would point out the irony in it taking grammatical quibbles to make someone who believed in invisible beings because some hippy and his friends said so 2005 years ago, to make them question their sanity.

I wouldn't do that, though.

come on, people. don't leave me here as the last guy sitting at the bar. i'm not ready to slam the last beer.

Here’s a question, why do creationists care if someone else is an evolutionists, and why do evolutionists care if someone else is a creationist, and why do we drag it into a debate about socialism?The whole education bit. I claimed that Labour hadn't messed things up as badly as it was in some other places.

well, just to move this conversation slightly back on topic and keep it going, how would you describe democratic socialism (or how is that sweden stuff called ?)

No, it can't, at least not in Science classes anyway. It is not a valid Scientific theory, so it has no place in Science. It is not a theory.

And you do realise that evolution has nothing to do with how atoms first appeared?

So who decides what's a valid scientific theory?

But that's just what I mean though. The big bang is where the atoms came from.

But atoms have to be apart of the bang in order to happen so where did the atoms come from to cause the big bang.

You can have a socialist democracy without the world falling apart. The Labour Party messed it up. Another party might not.

Yeah. Sounds like all the second chances people give communism. The USSR messed it up, but another country might not. The PRC messed it up, but another country might not. Maybe the NEXT one won't be so oppressive, for tomorrow is another day!

Nadkor, give up. He is obviously incapable of understanding the point we're trying to make.

Oh I'm able to understand Europastan, but I believe that God created everything. So far, nothing has disproven nor proven this.

So who decides what's a valid scientific theory?Scientific theories are developed based on observances. Observances aren't gathered to support them.

Oh I'm able to understand Europastan, but I believe that God created everything. So far, nothing has disproven nor proven this.But why do you think it happened exactly as it was written in the bible and that it wasn't more of a metaphor written by someone that has no knowledge of modern scientific language?

Yeah. Sounds like all the second chances people give communism. The USSR messed it up, but another country might not. The PRC messed it up, but another country might not. Maybe the NEXT one won't be so oppressive, for tomorrow is another day!
I don't know about you, the USSR, or the PRC, but I'm still waiting to see how a Communist country could actually happen.

It isn't lost on them all man...
You're the type of religious man that's interesting to speak with about the topic, then. Once we've covered the science aspect (what we know), it's far more intriguing to get into the implications. ;)

come on, people. don't leave me here as the last guy sitting at the bar. i'm not ready to slam the last beer.

*saddles up to the bar*

"I'll have whatever Frangland here is having!"

Scientific theories are developed based on observances. Observances aren't gathered to support them.

So how can you claim then that evolution is valid? Are you observing it? Did someone actually do research to see if we really did evolve from apes? Did anyone actually witness that we did evolve from apes?

But why do you think it happened exactly as it was written in the bible and that it wasn't more of a metaphor written by someone that has no knowledge of modern scientific language?

That goes back to the debate what did God mean by a day? A day to us is like a thousand years for God (or something like that)

Me? I don't know nor do I intend to know what I'm talking about when I say that God created the earth in 6 days (since on the 7th he rested) Now this could also mean that he took 6,000 years to create the Earth and during the 7,000th year he rested. :D

So how can you claim then that evolution is valid? Are you observing it? Did someone actually do research to see if we really did evolve from apes? Did anyone actually witness that we did evolve from apes?According to the observances of fossil records and similar circumstances over shorter periods of time, yes, we have witnessed that we did evolve from apes ;)

So how can you claim then that evolution is valid? Are you observing it? Did someone actually do research to see if we really did evolve from apes? Did anyone actually witness that we did evolve from apes?
Evolution happening has been observed.

And there is enough fossil evidence to provide for a link to apes, so the fossils are the observation.

*saddles up to the bar*

"I'll have whatever Frangland here is having!"

"you're not getting my Bud Light, Johnny!"

hehe

well I'm having a pint of work (still).. late night at the oficina.

but if i were having a beer, it'd be a Bass. So it's Bass for you too, Corneliu (nice little jingle to it).

Since nobody can prove that the first matter was not created, creationism is not wholly invalid.

creationists do not claim that the origin of matter is the fundamental disagreement they have with science. they make a whole host of empirical claims about things well after the first few minutes of the universe's existence.

and the first matter was a product of the cooling down of the universe in the time after the big bang. there was a time before there was any matter at all. it sort of condensed out of the energy of the expansion of space-time.

and the first matter was a product of the cooling down of the universe in the time after the big bang. there was a time before there was any matter at all. it sort of condensed out of the energy of the expansion of space-time.

While I do like this theory, I thought we had agreed that it was the elephant sneezing?

According to the observances of fossil records and similar circumstances over shorter periods of time, yes, we have witnessed that we did evolve from apes ;)

thank goodness someone had the sense, many moons ago, to start the body-shaving trend!

So how can you claim then that evolution is valid? Are you observing it? Did someone actually do research to see if we really did evolve from apes? Did anyone actually witness that we did evolve from apes?

Evolution can also happen at a much smaller scale. It doesn't all have to be dinosaurs to birds, apes to Humans. Just look at bacteria and viruses, and how constant over usage of antibiotics is breeding resistant strains. Survival of the fittest and evolution in action...every second.

That goes back to the debate what did God mean by a day? A day to us is like a thousand years for God (or something like that)

Me? I don't know nor do I intend to know what I'm talking about when I say that God created the earth in 6 days (since on the 7th he rested) Now this could also mean that he took 6,000 years to create the Earth and during the 7,000th year he rested. :DNo, I'm actually asking why you think it's literal and not a metaphor. (The days thing has to do with geology and whomever wrote Genesis. Geology shows that it took damn long for the world to come about. Longer than you or I have been around. So why didn't God condense creation into seven pretty days of visions to get the message across instead of letting whoever he chose watch it for the full 6 billion years?)

While I do like this theory, I thought we had agreed that it was the elephant sneezing?

if the elephant's snot was made of lemon meringue, i'll sign on. (though i'm not sure you want the notoriety of attracting a science half-wit. hehe)

thank goodness someone had the sense, many moons ago, to start the body-shaving trend!That's Lamarck, not Darwin, silly. :D

According to the observances of fossil records and similar circumstances over shorter periods of time, yes, we have witnessed that we did evolve from apes ;)

HAHA! Now that's funny. I sincerely doubt that we evolved from apes. for one thing, though we share some of the same genes as they do, we are entirely different from them.

creationists do not claim that the origin of matter is the fundamental disagreement they have with science. they make a whole host of empirical claims about things well after the first few minutes of the universe's existence.

and the first matter was a product of the cooling down of the universe in the time after the big bang. there was a time before there was any matter at all. it sort of condensed out of the energy of the expansion of space-time.

thank you for the explanation, good sir... or madam!

Evolution happening has been observed.

And there is enough fossil evidence to provide for a link to apes, so the fossils are the observation.

I guess someone doesn't realize that skulls of both apes and humans aren't 100% alike? They are different as is the bone structures of both apes and man. Sorry but no convert here.

"you're not getting my Bud Light, Johnny!"

hehe

well I'm having a pint of work (still).. late night at the oficina.

but if i were having a beer, it'd be a Bass. So it's Bass for you too, Corneliu (nice little jingle to it).Why not have a real Budweiser? I heard it's one of the best! (I think they have to call it Czech Beer in the states for some reason, though...)

While I do like this theory, I thought we had agreed that it was the elephant sneezing?

i thought that was how we got the original inflationary energy. think of it like an elephant sneezing into a 13 dimensional ballon. this theory also neatly explains how we got an asymmetircal distribution of boogers and anti-boogers in the universe.

"you're not getting my Bud Light, Johnny!"

hehe

well I'm having a pint of work (still).. late night at the oficina.

but if i were having a beer, it'd be a Bass. So it's Bass for you too, Corneliu (nice little jingle to it).

Thanks mate! :D

*Begins to drink his Bass*

HAHA! Now that's funny. I sincerely doubt that we evolved from apes. for one thing, though we share some of the same genes as they do, we are entirely different from them.

That's kinda because we evolved. :(

That's Lamarck, not Darwin, silly. :D

hehe

actually i should read his famous book, Planet Of The Apes, before commenting on Darwin's theory. hehe

I guess someone doesn't realize that skulls of both apes and humans aren't 100% alike? They are different as is the bone structures of both apes and man. Sorry but no convert here.
That's why it's evolution. Of course they aren't 100% alike.

Humans evolved from other apes, so of course the bone structure is different. We evolved a bipedal stance, we evolved an opposable thumb etc, etc, etc.

i thought that was how we got the original inflationary energy. think of it like an elephant sneezing into a 13 dimensional ballon. this theory also neatly explains how we got an asymmetircal distribution of boogers and anti-boogers in the universe.

I'd never thought of it that way. How long do we have before the space tissue appears to wipe away the cosmic snot?

Thanks mate! :D

*Begins to drink his Bass*

ahem

you may want to filet and cook that, first. hehe

it's now Murphy's

we'll try all the famous Irish/English beers. I prefer ales, naturally, to lagers.

HAHA! Now that's funny. I sincerely doubt that we evolved from apes. for one thing, though we share some of the same genes as they do, we are entirely different from them.Duh... They evolved from a similar ape that we did. Modern apes are like siblings or cousins to us, not parents. ;)

Stop hijacking the thread, people. Evolution debate is a few threads down. Besides, you won't "convert" Corneliu since he merely refuses to understand. You can lead a horse to water...

Evolution can also happen at a much smaller scale. It doesn't all have to be dinosaurs to birds, apes to Humans. Just look at bacteria and viruses, and how constant over usage of antibiotics is breeding resistant strains. Survival of the fittest and evolution in action...every second.

Just like I watch TV shows, at night, with flashing lights. I no longer wake up in the middle of the night due to thunderstorms with bright flashes of light outside my window. You get used to it. Its not necessarily evolution.

Also, vaccines make you immune to certain diseases. So why can't bacteria and viruses have something along those lines?

Stop hijacking the thread, people. Evolution debate is a few threads down. Besides, you won't "convert" Corneliu since he merely refuses to understand. You can lead a horse to water...

wait, I know this one!

"...but it might drown you if it falls in."

No, I'm actually asking why you think it's literal and not a metaphor. (The days thing has to do with geology and whomever wrote Genesis. Geology shows that it took damn long for the world to come about. Longer than you or I have been around. So why didn't God condense creation into seven pretty days of visions to get the message across instead of letting whoever he chose watch it for the full 6 billion years?)

Why don't you ask him? Come to think of it, I could ask him too but your the one that thought it up so you should be the one to ask him :D

HAHA! Now that's funny. I sincerely doubt that we evolved from apes. for one thing, though we share some of the same genes as they do, we are entirely different from them.
Entirely? How so?

Just like I watch TV shows, at night, with flashing lights. I no longer wake up in the middle of the night due to thunderstorms with bright flashes of light outside my window. You get used to it. Its not necessarily evolution.

Also, vaccines make you immune to certain diseases. So why can't bacteria and viruses have something along those lines?

Partially because viruses and bacteria have no immune systems. Seriously, it can't even work along those lines. The internals of the things (Immunity of Humans and Bac/Viruses) are totally different.

Also, vaccines make you immune to certain diseases. So why can't bacteria and viruses have something along those lines?
What do you mean? Like viruses mutating and evolving?

That happens. Alot.

That's kinda because we evolved. :(

Care to prove it?

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe that the cold war has ensured that it will be a very long time before any sort of socialist party takes power in America. The Democrats support the workers (actually they just get the vote of the workers aka. Steel mills, coal mines, basically Pennsylvania) and they support tighter restrictions on things like social security (limiting what the money from Social Security can be used for. Al Gore's "lock box" theory was in fact the best idea to "save" social security) and they tend to throw more money into welfare than Republicans, not that that is a necessarily a good thing. All in all, I don't think anyone needs to worry about a "Labour" party in the US.

That's why it's evolution. Of course they aren't 100% alike.

Humans evolved from other apes, so of course the bone structure is different. We evolved a bipedal stance, we evolved an opposable thumb etc, etc, etc.

Ahhh yes.

Now prove it.

Entirely? How so?

First of all, apes have quite a bit more hair than we do.

Secondly, they must all be elderly, because they walk all hunched-over.

Thirdly, they like to eat off of each other's scalps. (do NOT mention Appalachia...)

and etc.

So you see, we could not possibly be their genetic kin.

hehe

actually i should read his famous book, Planet Of The Apes, before commenting on Darwin's theory. heheWell, the difference between Lamarck's theory and Darwin's is best explained with the average Giraffe.
Lamarck: Giraffes used to have short necks. They grew these necks longer to reach tree tops and passed this on to their children.
Darwin: Giraffes used to have short necks. For some reason, probably astral mutation, some giraffes were more likely to have longer necks. Suddenly, the grass dies. The shortnecked giraffes that lived in harmony with the longnecked giraffes starve because they can't reach the trees.

That's the simple version ;)

Care to prove it?

Heh, nice. What I meant was what you were pointing out as a discrepancy was due entirely to the very process that you were trying to disprove. (Is that even what you're trying to do? Or do you just like these sort of things?)

Stop hijacking the thread, people. Evolution debate is a few threads down. Besides, you won't "convert" Corneliu since he merely refuses to understand. You can lead a horse to water...

Evolution is only a theory. It isn't scientific law and nor will it be scientific law. I understand the theory of Evolution just fine actualy. I just choose not to make it my belief. I believe that God Created the Earth and everything on it. That is what I believe. I don't care if you buy into evolution or not just like you shouldn't care if I believe in Creationism or not.

Why don't you ask him? Come to think of it, I could ask him too but your the one that thought it up so you should be the one to ask him :DSo why do you think it's literal and not a metaphor?

Ahhh yes.

Now prove it.
Something you and I both know is nigh on impossible on an internet forum. Don't be ridiculous.

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe that the cold war has ensured that it will be a very long time before any sort of socialist party takes power in America. The Democrats support the workers (actually they just get the vote of the workers aka. Steel mills, coal mines, basically Pennsylvania) and they support tighter restrictions on things like social security (limiting what the money from Social Security can be used for. Al Gore's "lock box" theory was in fact the best idea to "save" social security) and they tend to throw more money into welfare than Republicans, not that that is a necessarily a good thing. All in all, I don't think anyone needs to worry about a "Labour" party in the US.

Gore's love of lock boxes would have been the death knell for America as we know it.

Imagine:

cars
television sets
VCRs
homes
airline planes

etc.

shaped like lock boxes. Egads, the horror.

First of all, apes have quite a bit more hair than we do.

Secondly, they must all be elderly, because they walk all hunched-over.

Thirdly, they like to eat off of each other's scalps. (do NOT mention Appalachia...)

and etc.

So you see, we could not possibly be their genetic kin.
Okay. Thanks.
(I take it you were joking)

Entirely? How so?

I can answer this one. When apes don't understand something they jump up and down and throw feces. When humans don't understand something, they - oh wait, I better choose a different example.

So why do you think it's literal and not a metaphor?

Who said I took the bible literally?

Okay. Thanks.
(I take it you were joking)

But of course. I cannot (can you believe there are people in this ROOM -- mine -- who insist on writing "can not" instead of the proper "cannot"?) be bothered to be non-MIRTHful at this point.

I can answer this one. When apes don't understand something they jump up and down and throw feces. When humans don't understand something, they - oh wait, I better choose a different example.

Jump up and down and throw torches? Or grenades?

Something you and I both know is nigh on impossible on an internet forum. Don't be ridiculous.

Then why continue this debate if it is ridiculous?

I can answer this one. When apes don't understand something they jump up and down and throw feces. When humans don't understand something, they - oh wait, I better choose a different example.
Yeah, yeah. I was already answered by Frang. I get it; apes and humans are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. I get it.

finally, i may i may leave. have a good night, all.

Then why continue this debate if it is ridiculous?
Because I'm bored. :)

Who said I took the bible literally?You say you believe that God created the earth and everything on it. If you think that contradicts evolution, it probably means you take it literally.

But of course. I cannot (can you believe there are people in this ROOM -- mine -- who insist on writing "can not" instead of the proper "cannot"?) be bothered to be non-MIRTHful at this point.
No. I can not. Isn't it MYRTHful though..?

I belong to another forum (centered around the Weebl and Bob toons) which is made up of mostly young and liberal brits. When election time came around, the general consensus was that the Labour party had betrayed its ideals, and that the Lib Dems were the way to go.


I love Weebl and Bob! I live in Britain and I agree that labour has betrayed its ideals, but I voted for them anyway to keep the conservative party out. I fear Bush's idiocy is sending american politics the same way; people voting against the guy they hate rather than for someone. We need more charismatic politicians like Clinton or kennedy.

finally, i may i may leave. have a good night, all.

YAYAYAYAY! Good night Frangland!

Because I'm bored.:)

Logic! LOL! Yea that'll make someone debate something that is pointless :)

You say you believe that God created the earth and everything on it. If you think that contradicts evolution, it probably means you take it literally.

But I never said I believe in the literal translation of 7 actual days. :eek:

I love Weebl and Bob! I live in Britain and I agree that labour has betrayed its ideals, but I voted for them anyway to keep the conservative party out. I fear Bush's idiocy is sending american politics the same way; people voting against the guy they hate rather than for someone. We need more charismatic politicians like Clinton or kennedy. :eek: Sacrilege! You mustn't trounce the name of John "Ich bin ein Berliner" Kennedy by failing to capitalize it! Shame on you!

But I never said I believe in the literal translation of 7 actual days. :eek:And? Does that mean you take none of it literal? Genesis doesn't contradict evolution unless you take it literally. In fact "Let there be light" is probably the most impressive way to describe the Big Bang since they gave it that wussy name :D

:eek: Sacrilege! You mustn't trounce the name of John "Ich bin ein Berliner" Kennedy by failing to capitalize it! Shame on you!
He meant Ed (Ted) kennedy.

And? Does that mean you take none of it literal? Genesis doesn't contradict evolution unless you take it literally. In fact "Let there be light" is probably the most impressive way to describe the Big Bang since they gave it that wussy name :D

But there was no light! DIdn't you know that they blew a fuse when they tried to make the light? :D So how can I take it literally when there wasn't any light at all? :eek: LOL sorry lost my head! LOL

*watches his own head expload*

Anyway, your right, it doesn't count out evolution but yet, it does describe God making both man and woman :)

Anyway, your right, it doesn't count out evolution but yet, it does describe God making both man and woman :)
Ah, but that could be God 'guiding' the process of evolution. See? There really isn't a major contrast between them if you don't take Genesis 100% literally, but as a metaphor.

...In fact "Let there be light" is probably the most impressive way to describe the Big Bang since they gave it that wussy name :D
I second that.

"Okay, everyone - this is it! On my mark, flip the switch! Oh, and one more thing - try not to look directly into it, it will be bright... Ready? Here't goes:

LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

"WOOOOOOOOOOOW!"

I liked that :D

Because it is relevent to this whole damn debate. Didn't you learn anything at all in school?

In order to have a big bang, you need something to set it off. Since everything is made of atoms, how did the big bang occur if there were no atoms to cause such a bang?

Well, clearly you weren't paying attention in school, because you just showed your complete lack of knowledge about Big Bang Theory. Atoms weren't formed for some time even after the big bang. At the instant of the big bang, there was a singularity of pure energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, some of that energy was turned into matter, in the form of quarks and leptons. A while later, the soup of quarks started to combine to form protons and neutrons, and after that, eventually, hydrogen formed, then helium and heavier elements. What went on before the big bang nobody knows, but there are hypotheses ranging from there is no before the big bang (ie time, space, etc didn't exist before it: time started with the big bang) to there have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches before this and there will be an infinite number after this one - the universe has existed forever and will always continue to exist to even stranger ones. These hypotheses are things we will likely never have the chance to test, and so they are taught ONLY in philosophy classes, where they belong. The big bang theory has been tested extensively for decades and has held true, and therefore is a valid scientific theory which can be taught in science class. Creationism has absolutely no scientific basis, many points have been proven to be untrue, and those that have not are simply not possible to test yet. Creationism is not science. Period. It can be taught in religion or philosophy all you want, but it has no place in a science classroom.

Now, to explain why your question about where the first energy used to create the universe came from is irrelevant: No matter what your belief is, whether you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist, once you go back far enough, there are only two possibilities: Either there is something which has always existed, or there is something which was created from nothing. The idea that there is a God which has always existed and created the singularity which was responsible for the big bang is no more plausible than the idea that that singularity always existed or that the singularity arose from nothing. Since we have no way of seeing what went on 'before' the big bang, there's no way we can tell whether it was the singularity which has always existed, or if it popped into existence, or if there exists an entity which has always existed that created the singularity. Since all three are equally probable, and impossible to prove or disprove, there is no point in bringing up the question "where did the first stuff come from?" Because it does nothing to help or hurt either side of the argument.

How about this little bit of insanity:
More than one theory being correct at the same time.....
:eek:

Actually, science has proven that babies come from having sex.
Actually, science hasn't proven "that babies come from having sex". I thought you knew better than that Corny. :eek:

BTW, to get back on topic. Socialism is the way of the future, so make it work boys and girls. :)

-snip-
Spoilsport!

Anyway, your right, it doesn't count out evolution but yet, it does describe God making both man and woman :)Does it? It states which one was made first, and actually, all feti, while technically being female, look like they have a penis. It describes how we humans broke away from animals. We used to be apes, according to evolution, and apes don't make clothes. Apes don't build tents. We tasted the forbidden fruit and now we are no longer ignorant as one could assume of animals, since we no longer get to enjoy the blissful existence of an animal that no longer has to care for more than survival.
The whole garden of Eden story shows how we broke off of the rest of the animal world and began shaping our own environment, and what we sacrificed for being able to do so.

I'd never thought of it that way. How long do we have before the space tissue appears to wipe away the cosmic snot?

according to our formulas, somewhere between 3 weeks and 2.73 trillion years. it sort of depends on how many decimal places we estimate the universal klenex constant to, and where we round off.

For all those Democrats in the USA out there who think that a socialist democracy would be a better form of government, I'd just like to warn you of what a few years of Labour government did to Britain.

They made our industries inefficient and uncompetitive by giving in to the demands of greedy short-sited unions, which at one stage effectively ran the country, instead of the democratically elected government. When these unions lost their power, many industries collapsed, because they had grown outdated and inefficient.

In education, Labour ruined the once world-renowned British educational system by deciding that as everyone is equal, everyone should be taught together in comprehensive schools. This held back many of the higher achievers, and resulted in a huge fall in standards. Vocational educational was also seen as somewhat inferior, which has resulted in a shortage of tradesmen like plumbers and carpenters.

And finally, on a grander scale, Labour governments did much to undermine Britian's achievements. Instead of boldly going forth into the new world after the war, the Left started to question our past, resulting in an enormous loss of national self-confidence. It was not until the 1980s and the Falklands War that Britain finally regained some self-confidence, and stopped accepting the inevitability of decline. Symptoms of this problem were things like the cancellation of TSR 2 in the 1960s. It would have been the most advanced aircraft in the world, but was cancelled because the Labour government saw it as needless expenditure. Now we can't even build our own fighter planes.

America is a great country; don't let a few moralistic city dwelling idealists screw it up.



The past always needs to be questioned, if only to avoid the mistakes of the present.

It shouldn't be. If Evolution is taught, all theories should be taught (including creationism)
Most excellent job of hijacking a thread. The topic is:

America, steer clear of socialism

Bush's policies would seem to echo that sentiment. America needs a new tillerman to steer the good ship USS Enterprise back to port for a retrofit.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

wow, this thread sure died fast...