- This topic is empty.
- Posts
'In just over 3 years, OGO Fibers Inc., an AQSIQ certified exporter, has become a global leader in the exporting of recycled waste to our extensive buyers network in China. Today, we are shipping more than 2000 containers every month.'
critical think that.
We in the US imported over 334 billion dollars worth of goods from China in 2010 and all that we export to them is our trash.
Tim
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2011,15:33) Not sure what this topic is about. Trash, Stuart, or are they the same thing or something?
Do you get many people complaining to you as “heaven” about your posts as “t8”, t8?Stuart
one persons trash is anothers treasure.
we not only supply the trash, we build their treasure
no worries though right.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 16 2011,21:53) We in the US imported over 334 billion dollars worth of goods from China in 2010 and all that we export to them is our trash. Tim
Greetings Tim….There is something fundamentally wrong with trade of this type…..It is all about greed and selfishness,part of the american dream calls for folks to sit home on their butts and wait for a pension check or welfare combined with disability cheats, while someone else goes to work….The chinese are getting ahead because they have regard for the family, the elderly are deserving of respect and every body goes to work….These kind of sucess stories on behalf of the chinese do not surprise me…Quote Chinese President Hu Jintao has said the international currency system dominated by the US dollar is a “product of the past”. bbc news today
i listened to a ad yesterday 'end of america 29', then this today.
Quote (princess @ Jan. 16 2011,04:55) 'In just over 3 years, OGO Fibers Inc., an AQSIQ certified exporter, has become a global leader in the exporting of recycled waste to our extensive buyers network in China. Today, we are shipping more than 2000 containers every month.' critical think that.
ohhhh
Man america has alot of Trash.
So if china is ustiliziing that as a Resource, than are going to get rich.shouldnt we just cut them off?
Quote (theodorej @ Jan. 18 2011,01:10) Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 16 2011,21:53) We in the US imported over 334 billion dollars worth of goods from China in 2010 and all that we export to them is our trash. Tim
Greetings Tim….There is something fundamentally wrong with trade of this type…..It is all about greed and selfishness,part of the american dream calls for folks to sit home on their butts and wait for a pension check or welfare combined with disability cheats, while someone else goes to work….The chinese are getting ahead because they have regard for the family, the elderly are deserving of respect and every body goes to work….These kind of sucess stories on behalf of the chinese do not surprise me…
Perhaps there is some truth to some of this.
There is greed in wanting to buy goods at the cheap price that China affords.
But I know personally a half dozen people who would
give anything for a job. they were let go from good work and now there is nothing to be found.Two of these people have lost their homes and the others are
struggling to make ends meet. They are doing whatever they can, from cleaning gutters to mowing lawns and shoveling snow. This is not what I would characterize as lazy.We also can not draw our social security retirement checks until we reach 66 or more years old.
I just recently heard news that one European country went on strike because they were going to have to wait until they were 62 years old in order to draw theirs.Tim
China will be a superpower, if not the superpower of the 21st century.
I worry about our part of the world and China's ambitions.
I think Australia will be fine as they are investing billions in defense and warheads. But New Zealand thinks that they are too far away for anyone to attack, and thus we cannot defend ourselves.Our national anthem is called “God defend New Zealand”. I guess that this is the hope because no one else will.
i agree t8, i tend to think russia may have a bit of say in the matter also, the news of such things already have the media buzzing here in america.
Stuart
i am so glad there is a place i can go to place thoughts for you, in reading of late, i came across something that may or may not interest you 'carvaka'.
you are more ancient in thought then you think you are.
amazing, here you were giving all the credit to hawkings.take care big ape.
Quote (princess @ Jan. 21 2011,14:35) Stuart i am so glad there is a place i can go to place thoughts for you, in reading of late, i came across something that may or may not interest you 'carvaka'.
you are more ancient in thought then you think you are.
amazing, here you were giving all the credit to hawkings.take care big ape.
What are “hawkings”?Stuart
Ah, you mean Stephen Hawking!
Since you reminded me I did look up carvaka. What do you make of it?
Stuart
tis an odd question Stuart
my apologies in incorrectly spelling stephen, i understand most on this board tend to get a bit upset over titles, spellings of their prophets or gods, whichever.so do you agree that your thoughts are very closely related to the carvaka?
does the age of the carvaka surprise you?
do you think stephen hawkings read these teachings and just copied them into modern language?
why do you think the all writings did not survive?things of that nature.
Quote (princess @ Jan. 23 2011,23:40) tis an odd question Stuart
my apologies in incorrectly spelling stephen, i understand most on this board tend to get a bit upset over titles, spellings of their prophets or gods, whichever.so do you agree that your thoughts are very closely related to the carvaka?
does the age of the carvaka surprise you?
do you think stephen hawkings read these teachings and just copied them into modern language?
why do you think the all writings did not survive?things of that nature.
Is there some mention made by Stephen Hawking of this, or are you speculating?I'm sorry but I can't see what you are getting at.
Stuart
Stuart, i believe you call this man, one who wears the clown suit?
The DNA molecule represents a massive amount of complex information. In the human, DNA is comprised of 3 billion precise “letter” sequences, which, when read together, form a perfect set of instructions underlying the form and function of every cell in the body. When compared to a written work of Shakespeare, most of us agree that such coded information cannot be created or understood without some kind of “intelligence.”
The “Monkey Theorem” is a popular device used by naturalists/materialists/atheists to defend the idea that DNA code could arise by chance, given enough time – similar to a bunch of monkeys pounding away on typewriters and eventually delivering a Shakespearean sonnet.Can you believe it? The British National Council of Arts tested the Monkey Theorem by actually placing six monkeys and a computer in a cage for a month. At the end of the experiment, the monkeys had produced about 50 pages of letters, but not a single word. Indeed, the shortest words in English are “a” and “I”, but those require a space on either side of the letter to be considered a word. Assuming a very simple keyboard with 30 keys (26 letters, a space bar, a period, a comma, and a question mark), the odds of getting a one-letter word is one chance in 27,000 (30 x 30 x 30).
That’s one letter… What about a Shakespearean sonnet?
Check this out from Gerald Schroeder, Israeli scientist and author of The Science of God:
“All sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times – or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.
“Now the number of particles in the universe—not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons—is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.”
It’s dramatic to note that this statement was delivered at a New York University debate with Antony Flew in May 2004. Mr. Flew, a staunch atheist up to that point, recently declared the following in his book, There Is A God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007):
“After hearing Schroeder’s presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the “monkey theorem” was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.”
Think that one thru,
Randall Niles
P.S. — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) thought it thru…
“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
Stuart, why do some make such a magnitude of a subject.
Pof the K
Quote The DNA molecule represents a massive amount of complex information. In the human, DNA is comprised of 3 billion precise “letter” sequences, which, when read together, form a perfect set of instructions underlying the form and function of every cell in the body.
Not perfect. Not by the kinds of standards human engineers would set if they could do biochemistry on that scale, and certainly not for many of the larger structures like appendices and vagus nerves. We have the four genes to make our own Vitamin C so no one would ever suffer scurvy, except that one of the genes doesn’t work.Quote When compared to a written work of Shakespeare, most of us agree that such coded information cannot be created or understood without some kind of “intelligence.”
Are ribosomes intelligent? I wouldn’t have said so.Quote The “Monkey Theorem” is a popular device used by naturalists/materialists/atheists to defend the idea that DNA code could arise by chance, given enough time – similar to a bunch of monkeys pounding away on typewriters and eventually delivering a Shakespearean sonnet.
I have no idea what the Monkey Theorem is, or what it says. What do you mean by quoting this? The appearance of codes in DNA is nothing like monkeys typing at all.Quote Can you believe it? The British National Council of Arts tested the Monkey Theorem by actually placing six monkeys and a computer in a cage for a month. At the end of the experiment, the monkeys had produced about 50 pages of letters, but not a single word. Indeed, the shortest words in English are “a” and “I”, but those require a space on either side of the letter to be considered a word. Assuming a very simple keyboard with 30 keys (26 letters, a space bar, a period, a comma, and a question mark), the odds of getting a one-letter word is one chance in 27,000 (30 x 30 x 30). That’s one letter… What about a Shakespearean sonnet?
Check this out from Gerald Schroeder, Israeli scientist and author of The Science of God:
“All sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times – or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.
“Now the number of particles in the universe—not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons—is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.”
It’s dramatic to note that this statement was delivered at a New York University debate with Antony Flew in May 2004. Mr. Flew, a staunch atheist up to that point, recently declared the following in his book, There Is A God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007):
“After hearing Schroeder’s presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the “monkey theorem” was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.”
Think that one thru,
Randall Niles
Yes I agree this fellow is a bozo who understands nothing about how evolution by natural selection actually works. Would you like an explanation for why he is wrong?Quote P.S. — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) thought it thru… “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
Sure. What does that have to do with Bozo’s piece above?Quote Stuart, why do some make such a magnitude of a subject.
Don’t you think the explanation for our origins is at least of some interest? I see it as astounding. Don’t you think there is an issue of justice when creationists attack something that isn’t evolution by natural selection?This Niles bozo is either ignorant or a liar. Either way, he should really inform himself about what he is spouting in public. Do you think he does not care about the ninth commandment?
Stuart
Stuart,
once in a while an email is received, usually i do not read them, however i thought this one may interest you, keep you up to date on the latest.
personally, science is not my cup of tea, however this three dimensional is taking my interest. if you would like to share with me why he is wrong, feel free to. as always i will read your response.
i do find origins quite fascinating, mine lay in the anthropology/theology regions however. if something catches my interest, i usually exhaust myself with the information i can attain, if not satisfied i keep a list and bring it out now and again to revisit. not all things are to be known to me.
justice for natural selection or evolution is the least of my concerns Stuart, i believe there are more areas in life justice should be applied to then natural selection/evolution. it seems though it is of great importance to some like yourself. this being the case, i wish all the best in your endeavors.
in stating that this man has violated some form of commandment is a moot point Stuart, i will say though i am glad you know the commandments and the meanings, good to see.
are you prepared for valentines day Stuart? or do you not celebrate this in your area, or what would be of greatness is that you show the ones you love them everyday and do not wait till a date on the calendar to give you the go ahead.
as always Stuart, much love.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
