NB of betting interest, though I wouldn't recommend a bet just yet. The SNP:Green gambit is looking a fair bit less likely, but the chances of the Tories coming second (3/1 at Ladbrokes) are seemingly on the rise.
Mr. Eagles, no. For a start, there's an unlimited number, not just one. Secondly, to win you need to either die or destroy your capacity to have children.
NB of betting interest, though I wouldn't recommend a bet just yet. The SNP:Green gambit is looking a fair bit less likely, but the chances of the Tories coming second (3/1 at Ladbrokes) are seemingly on the rise.
twitter.com/Election_UK/status/649322581917585408
Poor Lib Dems, a few years ago they were in coalition in Holyrood and later in Westminster now look at them.
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
They appear to not understand how science works. I'm fine with people believing that the Universe was created in six days. However, if that's a hypothesis, then it has to be testable, and ideally, make predictions as to how we might distinguish it from the currently accepted view that the Universe is around fifteen billion years old and began with the Big Bang.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
And the attempt to treat eg Genesis as a scientific document is a misunderstanding of both.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
They appear to not understand how science works. I'm fine with people believing that the Universe was created in six days. However, if that's a hypothesis, then it has to be testable, and ideally, make predictions as to how we might distinguish it from the currently accepted view that the Universe is around fifteen billion years old and began with the Big Bang.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
And the attempt to treat eg Genesis as a scientific document is a misunderstanding of both.
The Old Testament was written down after centuries, possibly millenia, of oral tradition. The idea that my fellow Christians should treat it literally seems to be misplaced faith, in my opinions.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Roger touches on a point that has been puzzling me this morning: why is "Far East" politically incorrect (implying the world is centred on Europe) but "Middle East" entirely OK?
Good morning all. Far East politically incorrect? Feck me, I'll have to update my manual of progressive writing skills. I had no idea. What's the word on the Near East? Still OK?
I'm guessing "uttermost West" to describe America is verboten as well?
For my father, one of CND’s early founders, apocalypse was so imminent that he had to turn the car round on a holiday to Wales and go home to collect the large jar of suicide pills he kept for the whole family, in case of nuclear attack.
Parents can do strange things to their kids
When my mother was growing up, her father and eldest brother used to take one flight, and her mother, younger brother and sisters would travel on another. Her father wanted to make sure that if a plane crashed the family name wouldn't die out...
Labour MP Simon Danczuk has been threatened with legal action over claims his office accused a former council leader of covering up child abuse allegations against Cyril Smith.
Colin Lambert claims he was smeared by Mr Danczuk's office in an email which said he deliberately covered up a scandal involving the former Rochdale MP.
Mr Danczuk has denied any wrongdoing.
Last June, Mr Lambert was forced out as leader of Rochdale Council.
He believes Mr Danczuk, the current Rochdale MP, orchestrated a concerted campaign to oust him.
"It's more than nasty - it's personal," Mr Lambert told the BBC.
....Mr Lambert said he planned to start legal action against the MP and Mr Baker early next week.
Or......0.4% of annual UK Government spending..... "
Or £3,25 billion a year for the next 35 years for a weapon that can never be used unless we accept our own destruction....As a marketing person wouldn't you find that a tricky sell?
One of the endearing things about Corbyn is the fantasy numbers fit for a Green Ink letter writer to the Islington Gazette from his allotment shed. No one seems to check anything.
We had his indication that the £125bn tax gap (figure generated by Sir Murphalot for PCS Union with double counting in the tens of billions and one offs counted as annual figures) would fund the NHS. Then this was his Leader's Speech on Trident:
For my father, one of CND’s early founders, apocalypse was so imminent that he had to turn the car round on a holiday to Wales and go home to collect the large jar of suicide pills he kept for the whole family, in case of nuclear attack.
Parents can do strange things to their kids
When my mother was growing up, her father and eldest brother used to take one flight, and her mother, younger brother and sisters would travel on another. Her father wanted to make sure that if a plane crashed the family name wouldn't die out...
She still doesn't like flying!
OMG you are royalty.
As I understand it neither Prince Charles nor Prince William can fly together.
Having trouble quoting @TheScreamingEagles re the Biblical literalist crossparty group proposed for the Scottish Parliament - have I been pressing the off topic button in error? Don't think so as the quote button definitely doesn't work.
Well - while I share the basic concern - it's a bit late to think that Scottish independence will immunize the English-and-bits polity. IIRC, it was a good few years ago that English schools were being handed over to creationists and their organizations under Mr Blair. Haven't heard how that panned out, though.
NB of betting interest, though I wouldn't recommend a bet just yet. The SNP:Green gambit is looking a fair bit less likely, but the chances of the Tories coming second (3/1 at Ladbrokes) are seemingly on the rise.
twitter.com/Election_UK/status/649322581917585408
Poor Lib Dems, a few years ago they were in coalition in Holyrood and later in Westminster now look at them.
Those SNP numbers look fairly stable but I'm guessing that there would be a fair amount of churn. The SNP have 10 targets with less than 3% swing needed. I'm guessing they would win all of those but lose virtually all their list seats.
I'm also interested to see that just short of half the Tory MSPs are retiring so they could end up with a very new caucus in Holyrood
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
John Mason, who represents Glasgow Shettleston in the Scottish Parliament, has lodged a motion at Holyrood calling for creationism to have a place in schools.
Having trouble quoting @TheScreamingEagles re the Biblical literalist crossparty group proposed for the Scottish Parliament - have I been pressing the off topic button in error? Don't think so as the quote button definitely doesn't work.
Well - while I share the basic concern - it's a bit late to think that Scottish independence will immunize the English-and-bits polity. IIRC, it was a good few years ago that English schools were being handed over to creationists and their organizations under Mr Blair. Haven't heard how that panned out, though.
I find it worrying, I listened to the same sex marriage debate at Westminster and was wanting to throw bricks at my screen when people were quoting the bible to oppose it.
I'm glad the nutty science wing of the Tory party is pretty much David Treddinick only
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
They appear to not understand how science works. I'm fine with people believing that the Universe was created in six days. However, if that's a hypothesis, then it has to be testable, and ideally, make predictions as to how we might distinguish it from the currently accepted view that the Universe is around fifteen billion years old and began with the Big Bang.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
And the attempt to treat eg Genesis as a scientific document is a misunderstanding of both.
The Old Testament was written down after centuries, possibly millenia, of oral tradition. The idea that my fellow Christians should treat it literally seems to be misplaced faith, in my opinions.
Absolutely.
Most people I know think of the Bible as History/Science movement as an attempt to respond to the Enlightenment by applying a similar method to their own faith.
That's actually a capitulation before they even started.
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
I would add that morally, if you are part of a nuclear-armed alliance, and expect the lead power to use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons on your behalf, it's no different from having your own nuclear weapons.
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
Dream on. Any savings from binning Trident will be hoovered up elsewhere. Defence won't get their hands on any extra cash.
For my father, one of CND’s early founders, apocalypse was so imminent that he had to turn the car round on a holiday to Wales and go home to collect the large jar of suicide pills he kept for the whole family, in case of nuclear attack.
Parents can do strange things to their kids
When my mother was growing up, her father and eldest brother used to take one flight, and her mother, younger brother and sisters would travel on another. Her father wanted to make sure that if a plane crashed the family name wouldn't die out...
She still doesn't like flying!
OMG you are royalty.
As I understand it neither Prince Charles nor Prince William can fly together.
No exant crowns left, I'm afraid.
Although my grandfather was granted the right to turn his back on the Queen (not hereditary, unfortunately)
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
They appear to not understand how science works. I'm fine with people believing that the Universe was created in six days. However, if that's a hypothesis, then it has to be testable, and ideally, make predictions as to how we might distinguish it from the currently accepted view that the Universe is around fifteen billion years old and began with the Big Bang.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
Further, I thought that faith shouldn't be testable by science - isn't that the whole point of "faith": belief without proof? Besides, if science could explain all, what would that mean for every recorded miracle in history? Where would it leave God? To light the touchpaper, kick off the slippers and watch Top Gear re-runs?
Having trouble quoting @TheScreamingEagles re the Biblical literalist crossparty group proposed for the Scottish Parliament - have I been pressing the off topic button in error? Don't think so as the quote button definitely doesn't work.
Well - while I share the basic concern - it's a bit late to think that Scottish independence will immunize the English-and-bits polity. IIRC, it was a good few years ago that English schools were being handed over to creationists and their organizations under Mr Blair. Haven't heard how that panned out, though.
I find it worrying, I listened to the same sex marriage debate at Westminster and was wanting to throw bricks at my screen when people were quoting the bible to oppose it.
I'm glad the nutty science wing of the Tory party is pretty much David Treddinick only
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
Dream on. Any savings from binning Trident will be hoovered up elsewhere. Defence won't get their hands on any extra cash.
Well, I think the Treasury view is that our armed forces should be replaced by a recorded message saying "We Surrender" in the language of your choice.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
I would add that morally, if you are part of a nuclear-armed alliance, and expect the lead power to use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons on your behalf, it's no different from having your own nuclear weapons.
I'm intrigued as to what exactly we'd do with another Armoured division, other than go on the offensive somewhere. I thought we'd had enough of that in the last 20 years?
Otherwise, it's simply another load of tanks gathering dust in hangars in Warminster.
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
They appear to not understand how science works. I'm fine with people believing that the Universe was created in six days. However, if that's a hypothesis, then it has to be testable, and ideally, make predictions as to how we might distinguish it from the currently accepted view that the Universe is around fifteen billion years old and began with the Big Bang.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
Further, I thought that faith shouldn't be testable by science - isn't that the whole point of "faith": belief without proof? Besides, if science could explain all, what would that mean for every recorded miracle in history? Where would it leave God? To light the touchpaper, kick off the slippers and watch Top Gear re-runs?
There was a very interesting book a few years ago that went through all the main miracles in the Bible "proving" them scientifically.
It found that most of them *were* possible through natural causes (the one I remember is the Jordan drying up as Joshua crossed it could have been caused by a tree trunk getting wedged at a certain angle about 30 miles upstream a few days before with the build up of flotsam blocking the water flow).
The conclusion was that "miracles" were just extremely low probability natural events occuring just when required. Whether that is divine intervention or mere chance is a question of faith.
(Similarly, my understanding of the Genesis debate is that if you take six days as six "phases" it's actually a pretty good description - for an oral history - of the process of evolution)
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
Dream on. Any savings from binning Trident will be hoovered up elsewhere. Defence won't get their hands on any extra cash.
Well, I think the Treasury view is that our armed forces should be replaced by a recorded message saying "We Surrender" in the language of your choice.
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
Dream on. Any savings from binning Trident will be hoovered up elsewhere. Defence won't get their hands on any extra cash.
Well, I think the Treasury view is that our armed forces should be replaced by a recorded message saying "We Surrender" in the language of your choice.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
Technically that's correct but then science cannot disprove religion in any case. However days had no meaningful existence back then anyway.
I always forget how ignorant people are of both science and religion. Look up 'father of the big bang' on google. To quite a few people, it's a surprise.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
All roads lead to Rome - will be a common factor across this group.
Add in the banning the GM crops without looking at the Science and it isn't a good look all round.
Not my part of the group, though they have pulled back a little from their previous position that the bishop of Rome is the anti-Christ.
The Pope is Antichrist.
Since we are on Popes, I caught a bit of a program about alternative cuts of steak.
I love the name of the Pope's Eye steak. Very Protestant.
pope's eye n 1. (Zoology) (in sheep and cows) a gland in the middle of the thigh surrounded by fat adj 2. (Cookery) (in Scotland) denoting a cut of steak
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
Further, I thought that faith shouldn't be testable by science - isn't that the whole point of "faith": belief without proof? Besides, if science could explain all, what would that mean for every recorded miracle in history? Where would it leave God? To light the touchpaper, kick off the slippers and watch Top Gear re-runs?
There was a very interesting book a few years ago that went through all the main miracles in the Bible "proving" them scientifically.
It found that most of them *were* possible through natural causes (the one I remember is the Jordan drying up as Joshua crossed it could have been caused by a tree trunk getting wedged at a certain angle about 30 miles upstream a few days before with the build up of flotsam blocking the water flow).
The conclusion was that "miracles" were just extremely low probability natural events occuring just when required. Whether that is divine intervention or mere chance is a question of faith.
(Similarly, my understanding of the Genesis debate is that if you take six days as six "phases" it's actually a pretty good description - for an oral history - of the process of evolution)
The penultimate paragraph is key, I think. I once had some nutter try to run me down as I crossed the road, but managed to get out of the way. Divine Providence or lucky chance?
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
Technically that's correct but then science cannot disprove religion in any case. However days had no meaningful existence back then anyway.
I always forget how ignorant people are of both science and religion. Look up 'father of the big bang' on google. To quite a few people, it's a surprise.
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
Further, I thought that faith shouldn't be testable by science - isn't that the whole point of "faith": belief without proof? Besides, if science could explain all, what would that mean for every recorded miracle in history? Where would it leave God? To light the touchpaper, kick off the slippers and watch Top Gear re-runs?
There was a very interesting book a few years ago that went through all the main miracles in the Bible "proving" them scientifically.
It found that most of them *were* possible through natural causes (the one I remember is the Jordan drying up as Joshua crossed it could have been caused by a tree trunk getting wedged at a certain angle about 30 miles upstream a few days before with the build up of flotsam blocking the water flow).
The conclusion was that "miracles" were just extremely low probability natural events occuring just when required. Whether that is divine intervention or mere chance is a question of faith.
(Similarly, my understanding of the Genesis debate is that if you take six days as six "phases" it's actually a pretty good description - for an oral history - of the process of evolution)
The penultimate paragraph is key, I think. I once had some nutter try to run me down as I crossed the road, but managed to get out of the way. Divine Providence or lucky chance?
Speaking of China, I'm re-reading Three Kingdoms now. Perhaps 1/3 of the way in (on page eight hundred and something). Cao Cao is very interesting character, almost like a Chinese Julius Caesar.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's depressing, yet not necessarily surprising.
Depressing thing is, it is starting over here as well, if this is what Scotland is going to become, then Independence can't come soon enough as we will be free of such a backwards people.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Three of the five proposed MSPs who will join the group backed a parliamentary motion asserting that science could not disprove that God created the world in six days.
A proposal will go before a Holyrood committee today to win approval for a cross-party group on religious freedom, saying the new body would be open to members of all faiths and none.
I thought we'd settled this argument eons ago; Science doesn't deal directly with Faith.
It found that most of them *were* possible through natural causes (the one I remember is the Jordan drying up as Joshua crossed it could have been caused by a tree trunk getting wedged at a certain angle about 30 miles upstream a few days before with the build up of flotsam blocking the water flow).
The conclusion was that "miracles" were just extremely low probability natural events occuring just when required. Whether that is divine intervention or mere chance is a question of faith.
(Similarly, my understanding of the Genesis debate is that if you take six days as six "phases" it's actually a pretty good description - for an oral history - of the process of evolution)
The penultimate paragraph is key, I think. I once had some nutter try to run me down as I crossed the road, but managed to get out of the way. Divine Providence or lucky chance?
Assassination attempt.
Not a very competent one. I expect he was on drugs. But, he sped up, and aimed his car at me.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
Technically that's correct but then science cannot disprove religion in any case. However days had no meaningful existence back then anyway.
I always forget how ignorant people are of both science and religion. Look up 'father of the big bang' on google. To quite a few people, it's a surprise.
Robert Oppenheimer?
No - George Lamaitre a belgian priest. Oppenheimer is the "father of the atom bomb"
If we are asking science quiz stuff, what did Einstein get his nobel prize for? (it was not relativity)
What do Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell have in common?
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
Technically that's correct but then science cannot disprove religion in any case. However days had no meaningful existence back then anyway.
I always forget how ignorant people are of both science and religion. Look up 'father of the big bang' on google. To quite a few people, it's a surprise.
Robert Oppenheimer?
No - George Lamaitre a belgian priest. Oppenheimer is the "father of the atom bomb"
If we are asking science quiz stuff, what did Einstein get his nobel prize for? (it was not relativity)
What do Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell have in common?
1. Photoelectric effect? 2. Lost out on a Nobel to male colleagues?
If people are going to bandt figures around to justify their nuclear stance then they should use the right ones. It will not cost 100bn to replace Trident. The coat of replacing the missile system is something like 15bn or half a billion per year amortised over its life. We already have a missile system costing somewhere between 1.5 and 2bn a year to run so there is no replacement cost for that it is a continuing coat to our defence budget. It is not a replacement cost and is as now affordable within our defence budget. Nuclear weapons are cheap nuclear weapons are easy - witness all the countries who increasingly have them. That's why as hopefully a leading player in the bid to bring an end to tyranny and to democratise the world and make it safe to be nuclear free we should not unilateraly give up our nuclear weapons.
All modern systems are eensive to procure... Just look at the cost of the aircraft carriers and the planes to fly off them.
"No - George Lamaitre a belgian priest... What do Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell have in common?"
Well done on George. As to the question ... I won't google, so I'll guess that Jocelyn was the partner of John Bell and told him all about entanglement.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
Technically that's correct but then science cannot disprove religion in any case. However days had no meaningful existence back then anyway.
I always forget how ignorant people are of both science and religion. Look up 'father of the big bang' on google. To quite a few people, it's a surprise.
Robert Oppenheimer?
No - George Lamaitre a belgian priest. Oppenheimer is the "father of the atom bomb"
If we are asking science quiz stuff, what did Einstein get his nobel prize for? (it was not relativity)
What do Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell have in common?
1. Photoelectric effect? 2. Lost out on a Nobel to male colleagues?
As everything's become scientific, thought I'd re-post an article I wrote a few days ago, inspired by [no, not copying, absolutely not] some of the chat here about the Fermi Paradox, Great Filter and water on Mars, with some extra stuff about nuclear apocalypse and killer robots.
Having trouble quoting @TheScreamingEagles re the Biblical literalist crossparty group proposed for the Scottish Parliament - have I been pressing the off topic button in error? Don't think so as the quote button definitely doesn't work.
Well - while I share the basic concern - it's a bit late to think that Scottish independence will immunize the English-and-bits polity. IIRC, it was a good few years ago that English schools were being handed over to creationists and their organizations under Mr Blair. Haven't heard how that panned out, though.
I find it worrying, I listened to the same sex marriage debate at Westminster and was wanting to throw bricks at my screen when people were quoting the bible to oppose it.
I'm glad the nutty science wing of the Tory party is pretty much David Treddinick only
The lists of MPs on Early Day Motions in favour of Homeopathy the regularly come up depress me in the extreme.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Having trouble quoting @TheScreamingEagles re the Biblical literalist crossparty group proposed for the Scottish Parliament - have I been pressing the off topic button in error? Don't think so as the quote button definitely doesn't work.
Well - while I share the basic concern - it's a bit late to think that Scottish independence will immunize the English-and-bits polity. IIRC, it was a good few years ago that English schools were being handed over to creationists and their organizations under Mr Blair. Haven't heard how that panned out, though.
I find it worrying, I listened to the same sex marriage debate at Westminster and was wanting to throw bricks at my screen when people were quoting the bible to oppose it.
I'm glad the nutty science wing of the Tory party is pretty much David Treddinick only
The lists of MPs on Early Day Motions in favour of Homeopathy the regularly come up depress me in the extreme.
Vote Corbyn and Lord Sugar will emigrate to the People's Republic of China. That should be worth a few thousand votes for JC.
millions I would have thought
Alas people seldom keep their word in these cases. There used to be an aggressive Scotch Nationalist poster, whose name escapes me, who vowed to settle in the Bavarian Alps should the No Vote prevail in the once-in-a-lifetime Scottish referendum but he reneged.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
How good is everyone's translation from ancient hebrew and greek? I suggest before you get into your creation arguments you check on the real meanings and nuances of the original texts.
so though Ms Franklin may have been done wrong, she made the mistake of dying young.
There is that, but Jocelyn Bell was hard done by even though she says she holds no grudge. Fred Hoyle said much the same but I think he never spoke to Willy Fowler again.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
As those who've read my posts since April know, I have been convinced that Hillary is in real trouble for the Dem nomination (and certainly if she gets it the general). Today I have seen the first convincing piece of evidence that she will in fact win the nomination - the first ABC (anyone but clinton) article. Pretty much that only starts happening when those against the candidate have lost (Corbyn, Romney come to mind):
Of course, on the flip side, more bad news for her accumulates on the email saga, including emails about her senior aides debating how open to hacking they were using her server and perhaps they should get Clinton to do something about it.
For Trump, this article just made me laugh. While he clearly is not stupid or dumb, I think he deserves everything he's getting:
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
The asteriod belt is actually very, very sparse and it is swept clean by a series of orbital resonance with Jupiter.
There is plenty of evidence of collapsing gas clouds forming stars and planets. Hubble and other telescopes have taken loads of pictures of it and we have indirectly observed debris fields about other stars which fit our dynamical models of solar system formation.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
Can we keep all of the religious nutjobs out of politics..it is bad enough without them and their ridiculous claims..not one has ever been proved..
That would reduce the available pool of political talent quite substantially.
That is absolutely fine with me.
We can get rid of the Bishops (and similar) from the Lords at the same time.
Hear hear.
The Pope told some child sex abuse victims last week that God "feels their pain", well he didn't feel it as much as those poor children did he, and if he did why didn't he stop it.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
Cheers. I'll read it when I have time to digest the info. I'd still have thought that the gravitational attraction of bits of dust would be the square root of sod all but I'll give it a go.
I've never heard of the term "Far East" being considered politically incorrect. My reaction to someone trying to stop me from using the term would be to tell them to piss off.
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
A new Armoured Division, or maybe full Airborne/Air Assault Division.
I would add that morally, if you are part of a nuclear-armed alliance, and expect the lead power to use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons on your behalf, it's no different from having your own nuclear weapons.
Not having nuclear weapons would put us below France and less important than Iran and Israel on the food chain of world diplpomacy and respect. As for a new armoured division, that would be useless without the ability to transport it anywhere in any meaningful time and so it would be confined to Salisbury plain. Likewise a full airborne assault division would be meaningless without the vast transport and back up and the air superiority to go with it and the willingness if it were to be used as suggested to accept the humongous casualties that go with airborne troops. Since Parliament regularly objects to the use anywhere of our armed forces I am increasingly of a mind to wonder what any troops are worth. Can any one see Corbyn committing a British parachute division to anywhere? Exept possibly to prop up the Venezuelan government.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Does science ever disprove anything? Logic can, but that is based upon the starting assumptions made.
Science is based on observations confirming a thesis. I can have a theory that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon around the earth and 'prove' that to my own satisfaction with thousands of years of humanity's direct observations and even longer indirect evidence. But I still cannot disprove that tomorrow all that will stop.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
Our moon took its present shape fairly quickly after the "small" bang.
Asteroids didn't because of the size of their orbit around the sun but also Jupiter would have broken up any move towards coalescing.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
Cheers. I'll read it when I have time to digest the info. I'd still have thought that the gravitational attraction of bits of dust would be the square root of sod all but I'll give it a go.
Well it's obviously more complicated than just gravity, there are electromagnetic forces too. But when you have aeons to work with, gravity makes a difference.
It will if you include the tea bags the crew might use.....and so on......
As I pointed out the current crews 'use tea bags' etc. It will not cost remotely £100 bn to replace Trident. The ongoing running costs of the ongoing Trident are currently contained in our ongoing defence budget. Nuclear weapons are cheap, nuclear weapons are easy. Only idiots from whichever party would suggest we should unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons.
My little black cat, abandoned in an alleyway when she was a kitten...she had no formal education...Italians hate black cats..knows as much about how the earth and the Universe was created as all of the renowned biblical figures and present day preachers..they all know absolutely zilch..
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
David, for a description of planet formation, this seems convincing to me.
I suspect your observation about the asteroid belt not forming planets at this stage relates to the age of our system and them having the same angular velocity around the sun as each other. At this stage I think that gravity is more likely to pull them out of their orbit than into each other because of the three body issue:
Comments
CON: 24 (+9)
Now that is truly funny.
How's Corbyn's "I'm not talking to the media" tour of Northern Britain going today, I wonder.
Perhaps worthy of an Honourable Mention, though.
"In brief, you are talking bollocks."
Well spotted!
That we're the bookends of Europe keeping the Germans in their place.
Now it seems we're about to replay The Great Game
And we'll need to rename the North Sea. And the Mediterranean.
@MrTCHarris: What's stopping the Tories from scrapping the Fixed Term Parliament Act forced on them by the LibDems?
Creationists really boil my piss
When my mother was growing up, her father and eldest brother used to take one flight, and her mother, younger brother and sisters would travel on another. Her father wanted to make sure that if a plane crashed the family name wouldn't die out...
She still doesn't like flying!
Labour MP Simon Danczuk has been threatened with legal action over claims his office accused a former council leader of covering up child abuse allegations against Cyril Smith.
Colin Lambert claims he was smeared by Mr Danczuk's office in an email which said he deliberately covered up a scandal involving the former Rochdale MP.
Mr Danczuk has denied any wrongdoing.
Last June, Mr Lambert was forced out as leader of Rochdale Council.
He believes Mr Danczuk, the current Rochdale MP, orchestrated a concerted campaign to oust him.
"It's more than nasty - it's personal," Mr Lambert told the BBC.
....Mr Lambert said he planned to start legal action against the MP and Mr Baker early next week.
http://bbc.in/1KTrjkw
We had his indication that the £125bn tax gap (figure generated by Sir Murphalot for PCS Union with double counting in the tens of billions and one offs counted as annual figures) would fund the NHS. Then this was his Leader's Speech on Trident:
"I don’t believe that £100bn spent on a new generation of nuclear weapons taking up a quarter of our defence budget is the right way forward."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/29/jeremy-corbyn-against-trident-labour-conference-speech
Quite how 100bn is a quarter of 1600bn (~number for next 35 years) is an interesting one.
The guy is a fantaloon. I'd say he was on too much Tamazepam, but I being that wrong is natural for him.
As I understand it neither Prince Charles nor Prince William can fly together.
Well - while I share the basic concern - it's a bit late to think that Scottish independence will immunize the English-and-bits polity. IIRC, it was a good few years ago that English schools were being handed over to creationists and their organizations under Mr Blair. Haven't heard how that panned out, though.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/lithuania-is-safer-with-nato-mr-corbyn
I'm also interested to see that just short of half the Tory MSPs are retiring so they could end up with a very new caucus in Holyrood
Provided it is in "comparative religion" rather than science
I'm glad the nutty science wing of the Tory party is pretty much David Treddinick only
WRT Trident, I don't particularly care if we renew it, or, as TSE has suggested, use the money to create a new armoured division instead, or provide our carriers with aircraft. My own view is that current military expenditure is far too low, overall. NATO has proved a very successful military alliance, and we should be prepared to pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. We can afford to maintain adequate armed forces, and we should do so. It's cheap at the price.
Most people I know think of the Bible as History/Science movement as an attempt to respond to the Enlightenment by applying a similar method to their own faith.
That's actually a capitulation before they even started.
Although my grandfather was granted the right to turn his back on the Queen (not hereditary, unfortunately)
Quote button works now by the way!
I love the name of the Pope's Eye steak. Very Protestant.
Though it is suitable close to the Pope's Eye.
Otherwise, it's simply another load of tanks gathering dust in hangars in Warminster.
National Pride is at stake.
Lord Sugar: We should all move to China if Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM
http://bit.ly/1RhL9dz
It found that most of them *were* possible through natural causes (the one I remember is the Jordan drying up as Joshua crossed it could have been caused by a tree trunk getting wedged at a certain angle about 30 miles upstream a few days before with the build up of flotsam blocking the water flow).
The conclusion was that "miracles" were just extremely low probability natural events occuring just when required. Whether that is divine intervention or mere chance is a question of faith.
(Similarly, my understanding of the Genesis debate is that if you take six days as six "phases" it's actually a pretty good description - for an oral history - of the process of evolution)
http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/detail/ODLodl~6~6~51820~105175:1987-08?sort=Shelfmark&qvq=w4s:/when/1987;sort:Shelfmark;lc:ODLodl~29~29,ODLodl~7~7,ODLodl~6~6,ODLodl~14~14,ODLodl~8~8,ODLodl~23~23,ODLodl~1~1,ODLodl~24~24&mi=8&trs=33
Technically that's correct but then science cannot disprove religion in any case. However days had no meaningful existence back then anyway.
I always forget how ignorant people are of both science and religion. Look up 'father of the big bang' on google. To quite a few people, it's a surprise.
n
1. (Zoology) (in sheep and cows) a gland in the middle of the thigh surrounded by fat
adj
2. (Cookery) (in Scotland) denoting a cut of steak
I had no idea that they were the phosphorous business, but maybe they have mistaken Brimstone (sulphur) for phosphorous.
The religious mind makes no sense to me at all.
"I once had some nutter try to run me down as I crossed the road, but managed to get out of the way. Divine Providence or lucky chance?"
And the giant sinkhole that opened up in St Albans last night ... both divine providence.
Assassination attempt.
Oppenheimer? No way.
If we are asking science quiz stuff, what did Einstein get his nobel prize for? (it was not relativity)
What do Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell have in common?
But you were thinking laterally.
2. Lost out on a Nobel to male colleagues?
From memory ...
It will not cost 100bn to replace Trident.
The coat of replacing the missile system is something like 15bn or half a billion per year amortised over its life.
We already have a missile system costing somewhere between 1.5 and 2bn a year to run so there is no replacement cost for that it is a continuing coat to our defence budget. It is not a replacement cost and is as now affordable within our defence budget.
Nuclear weapons are cheap nuclear weapons are easy - witness all the countries who increasingly have them. That's why as hopefully a leading player in the bid to bring an end to tyranny and to democratise the world and make it safe to be nuclear free we should not unilateraly give up our nuclear weapons.
All modern systems are eensive to procure... Just look at the cost of the aircraft carriers and the planes to fly off them.
"No - George Lamaitre a belgian priest... What do Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell have in common?"
Well done on George. As to the question ... I won't google, so I'll guess that Jocelyn was the partner of John Bell and told him all about entanglement.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-fermi-paradox-and-great-filter.html
@STVNews: Culture minister failed to check key figures given to her by DF Concerts before granting £150,000 of taxpayer's... http://t.co/2ApDHT131t
I don't think they give Nobel Prizes to dead people so though Ms Franklin may have been done wrong, she made the mistake of dying young.
Should have stuck to making the tea, perhaps (sorry for that).
Sorry, I thought it was based on Oppenheimer being the destroyer of worlds and not the creator.
And he stole that from religious writings.
As those who've read my posts since April know, I have been convinced that Hillary is in real trouble for the Dem nomination (and certainly if she gets it the general). Today I have seen the first convincing piece of evidence that she will in fact win the nomination - the first ABC (anyone but clinton) article. Pretty much that only starts happening when those against the candidate have lost (Corbyn, Romney come to mind):
http://theweek.com/articles/580161/anybody-but-hillary-case-bidenwarren-2016
Of course, on the flip side, more bad news for her accumulates on the email saga, including emails about her senior aides debating how open to hacking they were using her server and perhaps they should get Clinton to do something about it.
For Trump, this article just made me laugh. While he clearly is not stupid or dumb, I think he deserves everything he's getting:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/poll-voters-describe-donald-trump-214270
We can get rid of the Bishops (and similar) from the Lords at the same time.
There is plenty of evidence of collapsing gas clouds forming stars and planets. Hubble and other telescopes have taken loads of pictures of it and we have indirectly observed debris fields about other stars which fit our dynamical models of solar system formation.
http://www.nature.com/news/astronomy-planets-in-chaos-1.15480
The Pope told some child sex abuse victims last week that God "feels their pain", well he didn't feel it as much as those poor children did he, and if he did why didn't he stop it.
As for a new armoured division, that would be useless without the ability to transport it anywhere in any meaningful time and so it would be confined to Salisbury plain. Likewise a full airborne assault division would be meaningless without the vast transport and back up and the air superiority to go with it and the willingness if it were to be used as suggested to accept the humongous casualties that go with airborne troops. Since Parliament regularly objects to the use anywhere of our armed forces I am increasingly of a mind to wonder what any troops are worth. Can any one see Corbyn committing a British parachute division to anywhere? Exept possibly to prop up the Venezuelan government.
Science is based on observations confirming a thesis. I can have a theory that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon around the earth and 'prove' that to my own satisfaction with thousands of years of humanity's direct observations and even longer indirect evidence. But I still cannot disprove that tomorrow all that will stop.
Asteroids didn't because of the size of their orbit around the sun but also Jupiter would have broken up any move towards coalescing.
It will not cost remotely £100 bn to replace Trident. The ongoing running costs of the ongoing Trident are currently contained in our ongoing defence budget.
Nuclear weapons are cheap, nuclear weapons are easy. Only idiots from whichever party would suggest we should unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons.
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form
I suspect your observation about the asteroid belt not forming planets at this stage relates to the age of our system and them having the same angular velocity around the sun as each other. At this stage I think that gravity is more likely to pull them out of their orbit than into each other because of the three body issue:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jcu5018/3BP_preprint.pdf