Official Divorce Agreement

[Sirdowski]

Chain email I received today from a friend, I got a chuckle out of it.

Official Divorce agreement:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what
is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be
the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.

--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.

--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

--We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood

--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.

--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.

--We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".

--We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you, and don’t forget Alec Baldwin, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga..

P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

[NCRAVEN]

If we're dividing up the land mass. I'll go with the south (Virginia straight across to southern cal) and we can finally secure the border.

[Galen Sevinne]

That's good....really. I am always looking for good examples of how people celebrate this form of thinking. I guess my side gets to keep all of the universities, museums, craft beers, national parks, coffee shops, literature and the Kennedy Center right? This doesn't offend the liberal mind one bit.

Don't let the door hit you in your Lee's jean wearing ass as you leave.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Sirdowski]

That's good....really. I am always looking for good examples of how people celebrate this form of thinking. I guess my side gets to keep all of the universities, museums, craft beers, national parks, coffee shops, literature and the Kennedy Center right? This doesn't offend the liberal mind one bit.

Don't let the door hit you in your Lee's jean wearing ass as you leave.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Literature.... seriously?

A typical rationalization from a typical social progressist.

I'm a Levis guy, FWIW.

[Galen Sevinne]

Literature.... seriously?

A typical rationalization from a typical social progressist.

I'm a Levis guy, FWIW.

There is a lot literature out there that might bring into question your mighty god. I wouldn't want to see you unknowingly stumble into what Pierre Boulle referred to as the "Forbidden Zone".

[Sirdowski]

I digress slightly, but do yourself A favor and read the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

[Galen Sevinne]

I digress slightly, but do yourself A favor and read the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

No thanks, I took a whole semester grad class on Polanyi 20 years or so ago who long paved the way for SSR. I get it. There is a romantic notion to thinking that nothing really matters but in the end everyone grabs hold of something. You're going to tell me that scientific pursuit is nothing more than what I see currently in front of me yet you will quote the bible like there is an absolute value to it.

No thanks, I'll stick to my Apes to understand your way of thinking.

[Greg]

Galen is quite right, it makes perfect sense to believe that the universe came from nothing!

It just popped into existence with no cause what-so-ever.

[ActualSpamBot]

Yea, Atheists are stupid. Obviously a wizard did it! That's waaaaay more logical that the evidence based belief in the big bang.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369076,-76.761231

[NCRAVEN]

Yea, Atheists are stupid. Obviously a wizard did it! That's waaaaay more logical that the evidence based belief in the big bang.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369076,-76.761231

Evidence?

[ActualSpamBot]

Yes, there is plenty of evidence to support the big bang theory. This link is a good source of information from UCLA's astronomy program, you can use it as a first step in furthering your education about the origin of our universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369121,-76.761198

[NCRAVEN]

Yes, there is plenty of evidence to support the big bang theory. This link is a good source of information from UCLA's astronomy program, you can use it as a first step in furthering your education about the origin of our universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369121,-76.761198

More condescension, per usual.

Your link talks about the Big Bang Theory, as do most, about it being "its development with time". Not the Big Bang Theory as the origin of the universe, as your sarcastic post mocking Greg above started to make.

Thank you come again.

[ActualSpamBot]

You are missing the point by such a wide margin that I don't even know how to address your "point."

It is an established scientific theory (a theory being an established and tested concept that is supported by evidence. There are very few "facts" involved in higher science) that the big bang theory was not only the phenomenon that created our universe, but also that time itself did not exist prior to the big bang. If time didn't exist before the bang, then logically the first event in the history of the universe is the big bang. It is the start point for the universe.

Your anti-science idiocy aside, it is well established that the universe was created by the big bang. If you can show me an astrophysicist who disagrees, I would be interested in reading his work.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369127,-76.761099

[NCRAVEN]

You are missing the point by such a wide margin that I don't even know how to address your "point."

It is an established scientific theory (a theory being an established and tested concept that is supported by evidence. There are very few "facts" involved in higher science) that the big bang theory was not only the phenomenon that created our universe, but also that time itself did not exist prior to the big bang. If time didn't exist before the bang, then logically the first event in the history of the universe is the big bang. It is the start point for the universe.

Your anti-science idiocy aside, it is well established that the universe was created by the big bang. If you can show me an astrophysicist who disagrees, I would be interested in reading his work.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369127,-76.761099

Listen here internet tough guy.

I am not an expert on the subject, nor do I pretend to be. I have read a few things here in there.

Many things I've read, don't talk about time existing or not before the big bang.

The Big Bang is a theory, and there is more unknown than there is that is known. So relax with the "evidence", will ya?

[ActualSpamBot]

Calling it a theory as if that makes it open to debate is evidence that you don't know enough about science to be arguing with anyone.

It is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting it and nothing to cast any doubt on it's reality.

Chill your jets big guy, your simply over your head trying to claim that the big bang is anything other than the established start of the universe. Ditto trying to claim time existed prior to its occurrence. It simply didn't. Time is a dimension exactly like length and width. Before the big bang there was no length, width, depth, or time. That is well established and supported.

The Catholic Church has even accepted all of this as facts. You arguing it can only be A. Evidence of your ignorance, or B. Proof that you are anti science.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369155,-76.761102

[NCRAVEN]

Calling it a theory as if that makes it open to debate is evidence that you don't know enough about science to be arguing with anyone.

It is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting it and nothing to cast any doubt on it's reality.

Chill your jets big guy, your simply over your head trying to claim that the big bang is anything other than the established start of the universe. Ditto trying to claim time existed prior to its occurrence. It simply didn't. Time is a dimension exactly like length and width. Before the big bang there was no length, width, depth, or time. That is well established and supported.

The Catholic Church has even accepted all of this as facts. You arguing it can only be A. Evidence of your ignorance, or B. Proof that you are anti science.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369155,-76.761102

Comparing how much is known about gravity to how much is know about BBT, is a stretch. A hug stretch.

Am I over my head talking about the science of the big bang? Abso-fucking-lutely. I am not an astrophysicist.

I started by asking for evidence. And per usual, you go off assuming I am some hayseed-hick, anti-science, radical religious nut-job, embarrassing intelligent republicans like yourself. Which leads you to come in with your smugness and condescension.

I said your link talks about the Big Bang as "its development with time" and not as the origin of the universe. And I said that because what I've read on that is incomplete. Matter of fact, here. Read this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

1) What is the Big Bang theory?
a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

There is a ton more in this article, so yes that is just a sample size.

[Sirdowski]

If you can show me an astrophysicist who disagrees, I would be interested in reading his work.

Classic example of someone who supports something like TBB. Namely the legitimacy of their defense starts and ends with what spam said above. The lame "gravity is only a theory as wel" is BS as well. The debate starts at a fundamental level with those who believe science can, does, or eventually will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth, and those who don't. If you happen to support the former, it's easy to see how many theories, despite myriads of unsupporting, and even falsifying evidence, are still considered fact. This is the backwards model scientists essentially use: During research falsifying evidence is simply ignored because the assumption that (X) happened is fact, so in affect, whatever (X) required to take place must only be evident, otherwise (X) wouldn't have happened. The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists.

[Galen Sevinne]

Classic example of someone who supports something like TBB. Namely the legitimacy of their defense starts and ends with what spam said above. The lame "gravity is only a theory as wel" is BS as well. . If you happen to support the former, it's easy to see how many theories, despite myriads of unsupporting, and even falsifying evidence, are still considered fact. This is the backwards model scientists essentially use: During research falsifying evidence is simply ignored because the assumption that (X) happened is fact, so in affect, whatever (X) required to take place must only be evident, otherwise (X) wouldn't have happened. The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists.

I am curious as to what you gain from being so anti-science? Hang with me here for a second before you attack the question and really try to answer what is it that you gain from such an anti-science stance. I want to know because there was a time in this country when geting an education was a good thing. Now a percentage of our population is developing a negative stance on education. It doesn't make sense to me and I ask you because I think you might have the ability to actually critically think about my question and give a meaningful answer that isn't political.

Now you might come back and say you aren't anti-science but your paragraph on top is full of anti-science bias. Look at what you say:


The debate starts at a fundamental level with those who believe science can, does, or eventually will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth, and those who don't

If the debate starts with those who think science can, does, will explain everything in the universe, you are starting the pro-science side of the debate at an extreme that just isn't true. This is a complete overstatement of a pro-science stance and immediately puts pro-science people in an impossible box. I know a lot of people who work at what would be described as scientists and I don't think any of them would subscribe to science's ability to determine everything. In fact, most true scientists marvel at the idea that as soon as we determine one thing, we open a dozen more questions that we don't know. Knowledge is truly infinite and we will always be chasing the questions that opens up from our previous answer. Scientists are usually more humbled by knowledge than arrogant as your premise begins.

Secondly, The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists

This reeks of anger and is completely dismissive of the "peer review" that is a cornerstone of science. Any scientific experiment that yields data should be able to be replicated. I mean, c'mon, this is 7th grade science. As a grad student, I never read a single journal article without cross-referencing the peer reviews and ensuing articles. Do you understand this process? Do you completely deny it has bogus? Researchers line up to peer-review, ie. peer criticize research. You are a fool as a researcher if you publish anything that can't be defended on its merits and "withstand the toughest falsifying evidence". You publish anything of significance that can't be verified, replicated and withstand critical peer review, you are toast. Research is competitive. It isn't cooperative where we all agree to support something that comes from poor methodology.

Your description of how science works is so inaccurate. No one claims it is perfect but these two claims you make right off the bat as fundamental positions on the integrity of science are truly ignorant.

No wonder you think like you do. So what matters? What's real? What you think is real because, well, its what you think?

Anyway ignore those questions. What do you gain from being so dismissive of science? Truly I want to know.

[AirFlacco]

30 PROBS WITH BIG BANG.

And for Christians that try to justify it by saying God
used it to create the universe, well, that doesn't wash
according to scripture.


Earth was created before the stars.
Plants were created a few hours before the sun.
The sun was created on the fourth day after the earth.

And time is just not measurement as people think of it here. At one point there was nothing. The earth was void of form but the creator had to put the earth into something and that something was time.




http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

[NCRAVEN]

Galen no one is "anti-science". What I am saying and what I see Sirdowski saying is, Science either is or it isn't, meaning it is a proven fact, or there is still work left to be done to make it a fact. It's not a consensus.

I am sure you'll attack that in some way. But, I accept science and scientific facts. Unproven theories, majority consensus etc. I am not saying they're not true or won't be proven a fact, but as of yet, they are not.