Obama Care Vs Affordable care act.

[Stosh 3452]

Well if ya listened to da Preezy today, the website is a resounding success because it shows how many people are interested in the program. Of course, the fact that we are all now required to buy insurance means that by definition about 313.9 million people should be interested.

 

The fact that the central access to this program was not designed to handle the traffic anyone with half a brain should have expected, and was apparently built on arcane technology, is not only a major embarrassment but also an example of why government does little, if anything, better than a private sector driven by (gasp) profit and the things that drive it (efficiency, accuracy, etc...).

Classic example of political devolution.

 

The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid this and stated as such right from the beginning. Now that the Constitution has become obsolete, we can expect the normal course of events to take over.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Did you even bother to read your "evidence"?

 

I've read through some of talkorigins.org before, yes, and I was around for the original talk.origins on usenet.

 

And by the way, you haven't addressed my questions either.

 

Your questions are about on par with "If the earth is round, why don't the people on the bottom fall off?"

 

Why hasn't the mosquito "evolved"????

On what basis do you say it hasn't? It isn't possible to check if a fossil mosquito can interbreed with a living mosquito (which is typically how living species are divided).

 

One would think that after 46 million years there should be some change...

And on what basis do you say there "should" be some change? Do you even know how evolution works? Why no, you don't.

 

Nope, the theory is just a guess at best

No, it isn't. Like any scientific theory, it's a model of how the real world works, and makes falsifiable predictions.

 

Somethings evolve and others don't?

On what basis do you say that?

 

And that's a reliable conclusion we all need to buy into.

Like I keep saying, you can remain ignorant if you like.

 

Or in this case maybe evolution hasn't been observed correctly.

Certainly not by you. Did you look at any of the observed instances of evolution?

 

On the other hand the decline of nature is obvious to anyone who has vividly observed that 99.9% of all species have NOT evolved, but become extinct.

On what basis do you tally that percent? Rectally?

 

Of course, I sleep at night really well knowing that I am a mutated form of primordial pond scum.

I see, you have some bizarre "icky" objection to evolution. That's real science-y of you.

 

Do you also think there's some worldwide conspiracy keeping the "fraud" of evolution afloat, for some nebulous reason? Do you think tens of thousands of people worldwide are committing a scientific fraud for no reason at all?

[packsaddle 753]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

"Why hasn't the mosquito "evolved"???? One would think that after 46 million years there should be some change."

 

Do you not see the problems with this? First it assumes that there is some reason for a well-adapted organism to change. Second, it assumes that the mosquito has NOT evolved. You don't know either of those things. YOU are the one making assumptions. Do you even know how many species of mosquito there are? Do you know what species the insect in that fossil was? Do you know if that fossil species is the same as a species living today? Even with the internet I suspect you'll have to dig some to answer those questions but I'll bet dimes to dollars that at this moment the answers are 'no', 'no', and 'no'.

 

As for evolution, here are references to papers with evidence of mosquito evolution:

 

Bataille, A.; Cunningham, A.A.; Cedeño, V.; Patiño, L.; Kramer, L.D.; Goodman, S.J. Natural colonisation and adaptation of a mosquito species in Galápagos: implications for disease threats to endemic wildlife. “ConGen3: the 3rd International Conservation Genetics Symposiumâ€Â, travel reports, in Genetics Society News of January 2008 (issue 58).

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/04/0901308106.abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19655436

 

Edit: I almost missed this, "Of course, I sleep at night really well knowing that I am a mutated form of primordial pond scum." Why would you sleep better if you 'knew' you arose from dirt? ...or from nothing? What does your origin matter for how you sleep? Is this really that great a source of anguish?

[Stosh 3452]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Did you even bother to read your "evidence"?

 

I've read through some of talkorigins.org before, yes, and I was around for the original talk.origins on usenet.

 

So you are assuming the "evidence" provided is correct? But that's okay, a lot of evolution "science" is based on assumptions.

 

And by the way, you haven't addressed my questions either.

 

Your questions are about on par with "If the earth is round, why don't the people on the bottom fall off?"

 

So you have no answer other than personal ridicule? Of course it's easy to compare apples to oranges. Natural laws vs. speculative pseudo-science. Works for me too.

 

Why hasn't the mosquito "evolved"????

On what basis do you say it hasn't? It isn't possible to check if a fossil mosquito can interbreed with a living mosquito (which is typically how living species are divided).

 

Of course that isn't provable, just like any other evolutionary "evidence".

 

One would think that after 46 million years there should be some change...

 

And on what basis do you say there "should" be some change? Do you even know how evolution works? Why no, you don't.

 

Evolutionary theory assumes the betterment of species over time. So, with the lack of such evidence, let's attack yet once again.

 

Nope, the theory is just a guess at best

 

No, it isn't. Like any scientific theory, it's a model of how the real world works, and makes falsifiable predictions.

 

Like any scientific theory vs. scientific law One's measurable, repeatable and will always remain the same. Guess which one that applies to.

 

Somethings evolve and others don't?

 

On what basis do you say that?

 

I didn't say that. Check out the "?" mark at the end, it was a question which is not answered.

 

And that's a reliable conclusion we all need to buy into.

 

Like I keep saying, you can remain ignorant if you like.

 

Didn't answer the question and instead attack the questioner.

 

Or in this case maybe evolution hasn't been observed correctly

.

Certainly not by you. Did you look at any of the observed instances of evolution?

 

Looking for that evidence. So far no evidence, but as an inquisitive person, I'll keep looking.

 

On the other hand the decline of nature is obvious to anyone who has vividly observed that 99.9% of all species have NOT evolved, but become extinct.

 

On what basis do you tally that percent? Rectally?

 

Again, the decline of species is far more evident than that of the incline of species. I was just pointing out the obvious. Of course we have no idea what the % is, but one can "assume" (something that people often are inclined to do) there is more evidence against evolution than for it.

 

Of course, I sleep at night really well knowing that I am a mutated form of primordial pond scum.

 

I see, you have some bizarre "icky" objection to evolution. That's real science-y of you.

 

I don't have an objection to evolution, I just don't see it as any valid form of science to explain anything.

 

Do you also think there's some worldwide conspiracy keeping the "fraud" of evolution afloat, for some nebulous reason? Do you think tens of thousands of people worldwide are committing a scientific fraud for no reason at all?

 

Simply put? Yes, tens of thousands of people can be duped by the "theory" and it happens over and over again with predictable certainty. That evidence of it's potential is widely known, but it doesn't evolve, it simply stays the same as the last time.

 

Oh, but of course there's a reason for it. I am fully aware of it.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

So you are assuming the "evidence" provided is correct?

 

You might not have noticed all the cites.

 

But that's okay, a lot of evolution "science" is based on assumptions.

 

As well as that round-earth "science" and thermodynamic "science" (which does not contradict evolution, by the way).

 

So you have no answer other than personal ridicule?

 

You missed my answers?

 

Look, I HAVE been replying to your ignorant questions. I've also been pointing out that your questions are ignorant. If that hurts your widdle feelings, that's too bad.

 

Of course it's easy to compare apples to oranges. Natural laws vs. speculative pseudo-science. Works for me too.

 

Evolution is standard science, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. If you want pseudo-science, I'm sure creationism fits the bill.

 

Of course that isn't provable, just like any other evolutionary "evidence".

 

So observed evolution doesn't count now?

 

Evolutionary theory assumes the betterment of species over time.

 

Nope. That just shows you don't know what evolution is. You ought to at least learn about something before commenting about it.

 

Like any scientific theory vs. scientific law One's measurable, repeatable and will always remain the same. Guess which one that applies to.

 

Thermodynamics and evolution are both scientific theories, and thermo does not contradict evolution.

 

Looking for that evidence. So far no evidence, but as an inquisitive person, I'll keep looking.

 

No, you are studiously ignoring evidence. That's what keeps you ignorant.

 

Again, the decline of species is far more evident than that of the incline of species. I was just pointing out the obvious.

 

No, you were just babbling.

 

Of course we have no idea what the % is, but one can "assume" (something that people often are inclined to do) there is more evidence against evolution than for it.

 

No, evolution has been observed. You've come up with no evidence against it. Thermo isn't against it, extinctions certianly aren't evidence against it.

 

I don't have an objection to evolution, I just don't see it as any valid form of science to explain anything.

 

Then explain this, not using evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

Simply put? Yes, tens of thousands of people can be duped by the "theory" and it happens over and over again with predictable certainty. That evidence of it's potential is widely known, but it doesn't evolve, it simply stays the same as the last time.

 

So explain the above evolution experiment.

 

Oh, but of course there's a reason for it. I am fully aware of it.

 

What's the reason?

[JoeBob 606]

How interesting is it going to be when Obama has to delay the individual mandate because not enough young people can/will enroll to support us old codgers?

 

Since delaying the individual mandate for a year was one of the first bills the Repubs sent to the senate to re-start the Govt; this will expose the petty bullheadedness of Obama:

"I refused to negotiate delaying the individual mandate back then, because that would have given the Republicans a 'win'. But let's delay the individual mandate now, because we have to fix it; errr because it's the right thing to do!"

Got anything to say about the ACA that doesn't involve slander or emotion?

 

 

 

 

 

Something logical on topic?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay. I'll check back later in case something comes to you...

[JoeBob 606]

Well if ya listened to da Preezy today, the website is a resounding success because it shows how many people are interested in the program. Of course, the fact that we are all now required to buy insurance means that by definition about 313.9 million people should be interested.

 

The fact that the central access to this program was not designed to handle the traffic anyone with half a brain should have expected, and was apparently built on arcane technology, is not only a major embarrassment but also an example of why government does little, if anything, better than a private sector driven by (gasp) profit and the things that drive it (efficiency, accuracy, etc...).

Just to be fair, even Bill Gates can screw up technology.

 

Windows 8.1 launch weekend plagued by some show-stopping installation issues

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2056292/windows-8-1-launch-weekend-plagued-by-some-show-stopping-installation-issues.html

[Stosh 3452]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

o you are assuming the "evidence" provided is correct?

 

You might not have noticed all the cites.

 

- Citing bogus references doesn't display proof any kind.

 

 

But that's okay, a lot of evolution "science" is based on assumptions.

 

As well as that round-earth "science" and thermodynamic "science" (which does not contradict evolution, by the way).

 

- Thermodynamic "science" is only a theory, but it supports the discussion as well as any other theory including evolution.

 

 

So you have no answer other than personal ridicule?

 

You missed my answers?

 

Look, I HAVE been replying to your ignorant questions. I've also been pointing out that your questions are ignorant. If that hurts your widdle feelings, that's too bad.

 

- back to personal attacks. I hope you aren't a school teacher, your students wouldn't learn a thing under that assumption.

 

 

Of course it's easy to compare apples to oranges. Natural laws vs. speculative pseudo-science. Works for me too.

 

Evolution is standard science, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. If you want pseudo-science, I'm sure creationism fits the bill.

 

- Just as much "evidence" for creationism as there is for evolution...

 

Of course that isn't provable, just like any other evolutionary "evidence".

 

So observed evolution doesn't count now?

 

- So where's the scientific proof? Observation and random hypothesis doesn't fall under the accepted definition of scientific method.

 

Evolutionary theory assumes the betterment of species over time.

 

Nope. That just shows you don't know what evolution is. You ought to at least learn about something before commenting about it.

 

- I've been a student of evolutionary "science" for years and I'm still waiting for any real scientific method proof of its validity.

 

Like any scientific theory vs. scientific law One's measurable, repeatable and will always remain the same. Guess which one that applies to.

 

Thermodynamics and evolution are both scientific theories, and thermo does not contradict evolution.

 

- It doesn't contradict a lot of things, doesn't make it valid or invalid.

 

Looking for that evidence. So far no evidence, but as an inquisitive person, I'll keep looking.

 

No, you are studiously ignoring evidence. That's what keeps you ignorant.

 

- No, I'm just waiting for proof. Until then I'll just settle for the random speculation posing as valid science.

 

Again, the decline of species is far more evident than that of the incline of species. I was just pointing out the obvious.

 

No, you were just babbling.

 

- It would be refreshing to stick to the topic instead of simply redundantly attacking others. Beginning to sound a bit like Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain.

 

Of course we have no idea what the % is, but one can "assume" (something that people often are inclined to do) there is more evidence against evolution than for it.

 

No, evolution has been observed. You've come up with no evidence against it. Thermo isn't against it, extinctions certianly aren't evidence against it.

 

I don't have an objection to evolution, I just don't see it as any valid form of science to explain anything.

 

Then explain this, not using evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escheri...ion_experiment

 

Like Wikipedia is the be-all, end-all source of scientific validity?

 

Simply put? Yes, tens of thousands of people can be duped by the "theory" and it happens over and over again with predictable certainty. That evidence of it's potential is widely known, but it doesn't evolve, it simply stays the same as the last time.

 

So explain the above evolution experiment.

 

- 4.6 billion years of "evolution" summed up in a "long-term" experiment conducted over 15 years, and all it proves is mutation is possible if genetically engineered. And dealing with E. Coli bacteria vs. humans? Purely speculative of course, but maybe humanoids are more like mosquitoes and don't mutate. Of course, if I'm going to go with the mutation theory, we're back to primordial pond scum basis for humanity.

 

Oh, but of course there's a reason for it. I am fully aware of it.

 

What's the reason?

 

- Why in the world would you be interested, seeing how you have all the answers anyway?

 

- Riddle me this. How does anyone know that the mosquito fossil is 46 million years old? And somehow we're supposed to accept this as fact.

[Basementdweller 608]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Oh mosquito have evolved...

 

 

How many unique species are there? Why is that they adapted or evolved to the specific area where they live.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Citing bogus references doesn't display proof any kind.

 

talkorigins.org has thousands of cites to actual scientific studies. I guess legit science looks "bogus" to you.

 

Just as much "evidence" for creationism as there is for evolution...

 

Only to ignorant people like yourself who can't tell the difference between actual science and religious myths.

 

So where's the scientific proof? Observation and random hypothesis doesn't fall under the accepted definition of scientific method.

 

OBSERVATION DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

 

I've been a student of evolutionary "science" for years and I'm still waiting for any real scientific method proof of its validity.

 

Hey, if you don't accept observation, you're pretty much stuck with just making up stuff out of whole cloth and judging "science" by whether it makes you feel icky or not.

 

>No, you are studiously ignoring evidence. That's what keeps you ignorant.

 

No, I'm just waiting for proof.

 

Again that shows your ignorance of science. There IS no "proof" in science, there's only evidence. Proofs are only possible in formal systems like mathematics.

 

Like Wikipedia is the be-all, end-all source of scientific validity?

 

So, you can't explain it at all, can you? Just attack the source?

 

OK, here's the site itself:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

 

Refute that. Explain how it isn't evolution.

 

How does anyone know that the mosquito fossil is 46 million years old? And somehow we're supposed to accept this as fact.

 

You can remain ignorant if you like.

[King Ding Dong 540]

Well if ya listened to da Preezy today, the website is a resounding success because it shows how many people are interested in the program. Of course, the fact that we are all now required to buy insurance means that by definition about 313.9 million people should be interested.

 

The fact that the central access to this program was not designed to handle the traffic anyone with half a brain should have expected, and was apparently built on arcane technology, is not only a major embarrassment but also an example of why government does little, if anything, better than a private sector driven by (gasp) profit and the things that drive it (efficiency, accuracy, etc...).

Hehe and if you have an iPhone we have Apple Maps. Still worthless.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10334142/Apple-Maps-glitch-directs-drivers-onto-Alaska-airport-runway.html

[Stosh 3452]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Basement,

 

Maybe you'll have some answers for me.

 

Adaptation to environment isn't always a clear indicator of change. Just because it's cold outside and I put a coat on doesn't mean I have adapted to the change in environment. No, when it's cold, my body adjusts within certain ranges. My blood thickens and I consume more energy in the cold, etc. I also sweat more when it's warm. I do not evolve to adjust to these changing environments, i just adapt or die. We have tons of species that fit that bill as being unable to adapt, even over supposedly billions of years to do so. Healthy species that simply en mass disappeared because they couldn't adapt. That doesn't explain how thousands of others did survive.

 

Unique species of mosquitoes? Well, we have one from 46 million years ago fossilized to compare it to. A comparison of one example doesn't mean there weren't multiple species of mosquitoes 46 million years ago. It's this kind of jump to conclusion to support evolution that keeps me skeptical to the whole notion. If we can do that with one mosquito, why am I to believe we don't do it regularly with other issues. We have tons of "evidence" that supports the issue of evolution, but we also have the same amount of "evidence" that supports creationism, for example, or any other conclusion that we start with as an agenda to prove. When we look at pure scientific evidence/proof it is woefully lacking when it comes to providing us with unbiased, real answers.

 

Notice I stick to the subject and don't ridicule to pose my questions or to justify my beliefs.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Evolution has been observed; creation has not.

 

And if you bother looking into the e. coli experiment, you would find that one strain evolved the ability to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment. That's a new ability that evolved.

[King Ding Dong 540]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

So is gravity just a theory with equal evidence as Intelligent Falling ?

[Stosh 3452]

Well if ya listened to da Preezy today, the website is a resounding success because it shows how many people are interested in the program. Of course, the fact that we are all now required to buy insurance means that by definition about 313.9 million people should be interested.

 

The fact that the central access to this program was not designed to handle the traffic anyone with half a brain should have expected, and was apparently built on arcane technology, is not only a major embarrassment but also an example of why government does little, if anything, better than a private sector driven by (gasp) profit and the things that drive it (efficiency, accuracy, etc...).

Screwing up is a human trait that some take to extremes. If I do it, no big deal, but when governments or businesses do it, it's going to leave a mark someplace.

 

Stosh