The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,104
Total Cats: 6,639
Abu Waheeb did not wear a mask, and was most certainly not gay or trans, and is now dead.
Rachel Levine did wear a mask, and is trans by their own admission, and is still alive.
This is the sort of "coincidence" you'll not read about from Breitbart.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 01-05-2024 at 02:10 PM.
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,104
Total Cats: 6,639
I bought two of these yesterday:
I opened one today, and I think I'll put the other one on the shelf for a few years.
The owner of Goose Island Brewery, [imagine newspaper headline]
uhm....
I actually have no idea about the political positions of the owner of Goose Island Brewery.
Politics do not influence the flavor of beer. At least, not directly.
This one was good. At $25 a bottle, expectations are naturally high. I feel like this one delivered.
Mouthfeel was excellent. This is a beer you can almost chew on. It wasn't overpowering like so many of the uber-fancy stouts are these days. Notes of fruit up-front and a very slight sourness in the finish were a welcome surprise in this rich, thick Imperial stout.
At 12.9% ABV, it's off the charts for a brew of this style, and yet it's such a complex and interesting flavor profile that you don't even notice. I definitely felt it later, though.
Intelligent design
Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. Wikipedia "On the other side there are top-level scientists that see, for example, that even with ideal circumstances the DNA sequence changes needed for evolution could never match the timeline we're on now, without some form of intelligent design. And of course when the number of this and other anomalies start adding up, someone brings up "Occam's Razor" and you have yourself the current low-level debate.
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,104
Total Cats: 6,639
As someone who was raised in an evangelical Christian household, and has been dragged through places such as The Ark Encounter and The Creation Museum, I feel reasonably confident that I have heard in considerable detail most of the arguments which either favor intelligent design, or attempt to find fault with the idea of a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
If you are arguing that an intelligent creator and a young Earth are likely, in the context of a discussion about the formation of Methane (which, at CH4, is such a laughably simple hydrocarbon as to barely merit discussion in the same breath as crude oil), and the broader ramifications vis-a-via global energy reserves and atmospheric science then...
I'm ok with that. You do you, man.
Thank you for telling me.
Yes, it began somewhere around the 13th or 14th century bce, although there is not universal agreement on this point.
As someone who was raised in an evangelical Christian household, and has been dragged through places such as The Ark Encounter and The Creation Museum, I feel reasonably confident that I have heard in considerable detail most of the arguments which either favor intelligent design, or attempt to find fault with the idea of a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
If you are arguing that an intelligent creator and a young Earth are likely, in the context of a discussion about the formation of Methane (which, at CH4, is such a laughably simple hydrocarbon as to barely merit discussion in the same breath as crude oil), and the broader ramifications vis-a-via global energy reserves and atmospheric science then...
I'm ok with that. You do you, man.
Thank you for telling me.
As someone who was raised in an evangelical Christian household, and has been dragged through places such as The Ark Encounter and The Creation Museum, I feel reasonably confident that I have heard in considerable detail most of the arguments which either favor intelligent design, or attempt to find fault with the idea of a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
If you are arguing that an intelligent creator and a young Earth are likely, in the context of a discussion about the formation of Methane (which, at CH4, is such a laughably simple hydrocarbon as to barely merit discussion in the same breath as crude oil), and the broader ramifications vis-a-via global energy reserves and atmospheric science then...
I'm ok with that. You do you, man.
Thank you for telling me.
I think if you note my previous post, I think it's agnostic as possible, showing both sides. I know religion is a trigger for Joe, so I probably should have avoided it completely.
One thing I will note is that the more we learn more about subatomic particles, and the universe with new images from the Webb telescope, some "written in stone" beliefs have had to be rethought.
for example...
Sorry, I'm too lazy to spoon feed on every topic. Here's one link, and it's just to show that decades of assumptions by really smart people are needing to be re-thought.
Oops..found something. What this is....is a counterpoint to the idea of a greeter in a bow tie, welcoming you into the Ark. In other words, you can have a rational discussion about this topic and not have to pull out a bible, Torah, Koran, etc.
Sorry, I'm too lazy to spoon feed on every topic. Here's one link, and it's just to show that decades of assumptions by really smart people are needing to be re-thought.
Oops..found something. What this is....is a counterpoint to the idea of a greeter in a bow tie, welcoming you into the Ark. In other words, you can have a rational discussion about this topic and not have to pull out a bible, Torah, Koran, etc.
Last edited by cordycord; 01-11-2024 at 12:17 AM.
I'm with you on this one Cord. I am not religious though I was raised catholic. I stopped believing in a god as a young man. As an old man, you have time to reflect and experience to draw your own conclusions. I simply don't believe we are here by accident. I'm not going yo say that there is a divine entity looking down at all of us granting us wishes or punishing us or even an afterlife. But science always wants to have the answer and be the only source of truth. According to a quote I heard, that's not science, that's religion. Never questioning the answers is faith. Questioning the answers is science.
And remember science is a lot of theory. It is not the big-bang fact, it is the big-bang theory. It's not string fact, it's string theory. We can go on and on like the out-of-Africa theory. We found ten bones and have come to the conclusion that this is where modern humans came from and that this species of homo is different from this one because of this one feature, etc. Science is trying really hard to beat religion at its own game.
And remember science is a lot of theory. It is not the big-bang fact, it is the big-bang theory. It's not string fact, it's string theory. We can go on and on like the out-of-Africa theory. We found ten bones and have come to the conclusion that this is where modern humans came from and that this species of homo is different from this one because of this one feature, etc. Science is trying really hard to beat religion at its own game.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,517
Total Cats: 4,080
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraha...imony-n2633443
Fauci Admits 'Six-Foot Social Distancing' Was Based on Nothing During Closed-Door Testimony
“During his interview today, Dr. Fauci claimed that the policies and mandates he promoted may unfortunately increase vaccine hesitancy for years to come,” the Republican wrote in his findings. “Further, the social distancing recommendations forced on Americans ‘sort of just appeared’ and were likely not based on scientific data. “[The transcribed interview] revealed systemic failures in our public health system and shed a light on serious procedural concerns with our public health authority.”