Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: pendennis
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 312 next>>
May 9, 2024 14:35:36   #
DennyT wrote:
He illegally took the documents in Washington DC, which were a large portion of the indictment. Only when he instructed and refused to rerun them did a crime take place in Florida. Smith had a choice- he choose wrong


The documents were located in Florida. That makes it a Florida case. The moronic special prosecutor had no choice.

Besides, it may all be moot. Smith is illegally serving as a special prosecutor.
Go to
May 9, 2024 08:38:09   #
DennyT wrote:
The case should have been in Washington DC to begin with.


Under Federal judicial rules, the case has to be tried in the district where the alleged crime occurs.
Go to
May 8, 2024 22:36:47   #
How about the FBI and DoJ mishandling evidence, failing to follow their own procedures, getting documents out of sequence, displaying "Secret" covers on top of non-secret documents, etc.?

These clowns will be lucky if she doesn't toss out the case.

John Frim wrote -
Quote:

Who in their right mind would have assigned a case this serious to such an inexperienced judge in the first place?


Follows is the procedure for Iowa, and it's nearly identical as all other Federal Courts.
https://www.iand.uscourts.gov/content/how-are-federal-judges-assigned-cases

She has a pretty long career in the Federal justice system.
Go to
May 7, 2024 18:19:30   #
JohnFrim wrote:
IF there is a god, then I believe he created "matter" (electrons, protons, neutrons, muons, pions, etc) and their properties, much as LEGO has building blocks. There are rules as to how they interact, but the results are unpredictable. And here we are!!!


Fusion, as a result of hydrogen and gravity, evidently randomly creates the elements up through iron (dependent on the type of star) before the fusion succumbs to gravity and finally blows up the star. At least, that's the way the head of the Astronomy Department @ U. Washington explained it in a faculty lecture. There's a different class of stars which creates those atoms heavier than iron. Stars are responsible for creating all the subatomic particles, and they've probably been around since the beginning (Big Bang).

It wasn't until the creation of the X-ray, that Mendel's and Darwin's works came off the shelf and actually made sense for folks.

One of the better books on the subject of evolution, is one written by British author Matt Ridley. "The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge".
Go to
May 7, 2024 15:39:05   #
FrumCA wrote:
Theistic evolution is the belief that God controls evolution and that He designed the universe and the Earth to be this way for a purpose. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is to be accepted, it is because God oversees this natural process - God created nature along with everything else.


The Theory of Natural Selection is accepted because there is evidence to prove that beings ascended to the "top of the food chain" because they did things that kept them alive when others of their species died because they didn't adapt. That does not prove that a deity "oversees" that process. Natural selection, per se, means that there is no "grand plan". Life evolves because beings did/do things that the rest of the crowd didn't. When mankind first crawled out of the forest and stood on two legs, the survivors were the ones who didn't stand upright immediately and get hammered by a big raptor, or they evaded the predatory cat others didn't.

It also goes back to simpler life when a genetic deviation allowed a creature to avoid being eaten because it sensed a shadow and got out of the way.

All of this happened millions (billions?) of times with the survivors adapting to their environment, ensuring that genetic mutation survived. There was no "guiding" hand that maintained control. It was/is all random.
Go to
May 7, 2024 12:03:50   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Then why make a definitive claim if you can not back up that claim with evidence. It's just as irrational to make a definitive claim that there is no God as it is to make the claim that there isn't. To make a claim that there is no God you either have to have evidence of such a claim or you have to have all knowledge that is available in the universe or in existence. So if you make a claim that there is no God then you must put this all knowledge or have such evidence to prove it.


It's not irrational to claim that something does not exist, when there's no evidence to the contrary.

I assert that there are no leprechauns. If you believe there are, you are bound by logic to prove that there are. It's no more complicated than that.

I can assert that there was no creation by a superior being. I don't have to provide prove that there wasn't. You, on the other hand, have to prove that a superior being created everything and ignore the science of evolution.
Go to
May 7, 2024 09:03:00   #
Robertl594 wrote:
I think you have this flipped. To prove the existence is the positive and to prove the lack thereof is the negative. I think the onus of proof is on you.


I stated that God did not exist, because there's no proof-positive he(she) does. It's incumbent on the person(s) who allege that he/she does to provide that proof. So far, respondents have only been able to provide their spiritual beliefs, no positive proof.
Go to
May 7, 2024 08:19:22   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Ok then prove your claim.


I don't have to prove the negative. You are bound, however, to prove the positive.
Go to
May 6, 2024 21:52:18   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Ok one more. So, is there a God or gods or not?


In a word, no.
Go to
May 6, 2024 21:10:59   #
FrumCA wrote:
Proven science that there is no God??? I'd like to see that. You may have "faith" that no God exists, but you have failed to prove he doesn't. Sort of the opposite side of the argument, isn't it??


In the philosophical, I do not have to prove a negative. You, however, must prove the positive.
Go to
May 6, 2024 16:33:48   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Wrong, I don’t have to prove a faith based belief in God.


I didn't state that you had to prove your faith in "God". You have to prove the existence of a God. There's a huge chasm between faith-based belief and physical existence, and you have failed to prove a physical existence.

Believe what you want. Just don't attempt to foist your unproven claims on others who know better and rely on proven science.
Go to
May 6, 2024 15:33:01   #
Racmanaz wrote:
No it is not incumbent on anyone that inserts his belief in a God. Believe and faith do not demand evidence. However, those who Make a definitive claim that there is no God must provide evidence of such claim.


To satisfy the philosophical and scientific arguments, it's incumbent on the claimant to prove his/her assertion. Claiming there is "a God (or other deity)" requires physical proof of its existence. You may well be satisfied with your article of faith, but no one else is, unless you can physically prove your point.

There is scientific evidence of The Big Bang. In fact the term "Big Bang Theory" is no longer used because the creation of the universe is no longer speculative. It's provable by physical observation; something the creation theory can't be.
Go to
May 6, 2024 09:59:28   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Yes, it's more rational to "believe" in an Entity than to make a definite claim that one does not exists. Atheism is a fools game. Now to answer Krakens question, yes in my opinion, holding the Agnostic position is rational. Saying that there is no God is just as irrational as to say that there is definitely a God, even is one or the other holds true.


It's incumbent on the person who asserts the existence of a deity, to prove that existence. Yes, there are circumstances where a negative can be proven, but that's a different realm of philosophy altogether.
Go to
May 6, 2024 09:49:10   #
Flickwet wrote:
These from film daze… anyone else?...
a(a)+b(b) = c(c) is how we arrive at 50mm for a “ normal” field of view on a 35mm film or full frame sensor. I don’t know how to type it out on my phone correctly...


Actually, when calculating the "normal" focal length lens for a full-size (i.e. 36mmx24mm) sensor, the diagonal of the dimensions yields about 43mm. Thus, a 43mm lens is the focal length which will cover the entire frame. 50mm is actually slightly telephoto. Then focal length is measured from the optical center, to the sensor (film) plane.
Go to
May 5, 2024 15:56:10   #
burkphoto wrote:
The 1960s and '70s were a very divisive time due to the Vietnam war. I think a lot of the recognition of veterans today is an effort to make amends for the way many service members were treated when they came home from Vietnam. Those who served did so either selflessly, or as the result of a draft, and in both cases, deserve ultimate respect and honor for their service. I taught my kids as they grew up that they should always honor those who serve in any military conflict, because freedom has a price. Regardless of what we think about the justification for a war, those who participate are doing some of the most difficult jobs that exist.

My Dad was a signalman on a supply ship in the Pacific in WWII, and again in Korea. He NEVER talked about it. He just wouldn't, and wanted nothing to do with the VFW or any other veterans' organization, or anything that would remind him of war. Mom told me in my teens that he had lost several good friends who were on another ship that sank in the Pacific. The scale of WWII was so large, nearly everyone knew someone who lost someone. I knew a few who went to Vietnam, but they all came back alive. Two of them had serious PTSD.
The 1960s and '70s were a very divisive time due t... (show quote)


My uncle was a storekeeper aboard an attack transport during the Philippines campaign. Like your dad, he refused to discuss it, even in the late 70's. He landed with supplies under fire a number of times. He and my dad were identical twins, and my dad was exempted from serving anywhere outside the continental U.S. Their father had been killed in 1942 in an industrial accident, so one of them had to serve stateside. My father was selected.

As an aside, my dad served at a place called Camp Allen, Virginia. He was an Electrician's Mate, and worked in base maintenance. His CO was a young LT in the Civil Engineering Corps, named Custer Krickenberger. When I served, Commodore Krickenberger was my CO. At Navy Day in 1970 the two of them reunited, and they spent a long time catching up on old times. When my dad stepped up to reunite with the Commodore, the first words out of his mouth were, "Brownie! How are you doing?" As if they had only been apart a few days.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 312 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.