random evil guy

norway is fully 25% of the population of scandinavia and a corresponding ratio of the GDP. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> your point being?

ID is creationism, just with a pseudo scientific name attached to it. to say that 'aliens' were the creators, just moves the problem one step back. who created the 'aliens' then?

there's a quote steeped in pure logic. uh, hate to tell you, but nazism is socialism - the national socialist german workers party. i get a kick out of people that just don't understand that. wrong. socialism is not nazism, there are many, many ideological and philosophical differences between socialism and nazism. not to mention, hitler didn't nationalise industries and trusts.

norway, not scandinavia.

electrical engineering...? pretty much confirms my suspicions. let's go through this: 1.provide source for your claim. otherwise it just another of your 'informed' statements on this board. 2.top income doesn't equal most educated; i.e. people with degrees in economics can make a lot of money, but i would hardly call them 'most educated' as economics isn't even a real science. 3.do you consider yourself to be selfish or do you refute the claim that all humans are different? edit: you mentioned ad hominem. if you could actually provide sources to back up your ridicilous claims, the personal insults would go away. you said 'lobbing insults' is a sign of losing an argument. how is that possible when you don't provide any sources? you repeat the same ole tired libertarian tirade that 'private is good, government is bad'. why does health care work in both denmark and sweden then? they don't have oil, as norway have...

you're a moron, but don't even know it... it's sad. the welfare state works perfectly in scandinavia. problem is with you liberalistic ****, is that you are selfish and don't care about others. don't suger coat it with economic bull****. economics isn't a real science. say what you really mean; you hate poor people, end off. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I imagine you're going to want to rethink your language there. Taks and I fundamentally disagree on a whole host of issues, but it's rarely, if ever, because he's uninformed, and never because he's a moron. I know his, "Go do your research, whelp!" style can be annoying, but it's actually pleasant once you get used to it. If you think he's wrong, prove it, but this seems like a really stupid topic to start flinging mud over. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, he is a moron as all liberalists are morons per definition and the welfare state works. the scandinavian countries are a proof of that. i may come of as a bit harsh, but right wing freaks piss the hell out of me. not only are they, mostly, unintelligent, but their politics is based either on selfishness or flawed logic...

and most of those countries with universal healthcare cannot afford it, and, what they do provide, is substandard compared to US provisions. canadians that can afford better healthcare come the US and pay for it out of pocket (they aren't allowed to do that there...). socializing healthcare will ruin it. there will be no incentives for medical professionals, no competition, and the quality of care will bottom out. HMOs have already damaged the level of care we get now. the medicaid drug benefit, IMO, is the second worst travesty ever inflicted on the people of the US. first is social security. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you're a moron, but don't even know it... it's sad. the welfare state works perfectly in scandinavia. problem is with you liberalistic ****, is that you are selfish and don't care about others. don't suger coat it with economic bull****. economics isn't a real science. say what you really mean; you hate poor people, end off.

From same site: So we are talikng about different things. The initial point of discussion was about theory of evolution. PS I am not creationist <{POST_SNAPBACK}> about time you got it. i tried to explain the difference in three posts now. evolution is a fact. the evolution theory is a scientific theory...

1. I'll treat this seriously: I hope you can see how that means the same as the term I believe you Euros use, as in: The worlds most popular soccer "club", Manchester United, is owned by an American. Much like "club" has more than one usage, including similar usages, so does franchise. Now you can comment out of knowledge, instead of ignorance! Yea! 2. Generally teams don't move around. There are 5, iirc, teams out of 32 (I think, I forget) that have moved, 2 of which took the name of the team with them, and one (The Cardnials) have moved twice. As a rule of thumb, a team moves about once every 15 years. But for example, the oldest teams in the NFL (Bears, go bears, and the Packers, circa 1919) have never moved. Why they move? Lots of reason. Generally due to wanting a new stadium or lack of support in thier home town. Mainly tho, they keep trying to put a team in LA (huge market), but they don't care, so they move the team to a city that likes football. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> still, didn't answer my questions. why are they called franchises and not clubs, organizations etc. i'm no expert of the english language, but i suspect the term franchise was adopted by teams and then entered into the dictionary. so to speak...

You refer to gravity as an empirical term (you feel it) and try to compare it to evolution which is abstract, so it is not appropriate. Evolution theory is a theory, it can't be observed, since it is abstract, not empirical. What you observe in nature supports theory of evolution, but doesn't prove it. No science have "proofs" aside from abstract disciplines as mathematics and computer science. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> actually, evolution is observed and a fact. microevolution is just mutation and macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution. same principles. creationists disagree on the latter... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

do you consider gravity to be 'subjective'? remember, i'm not talking about the theory of gravity, but the physical phenomenon of gravity. keep in mind, there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. one is the actual physical process, while the other tries to explain it...

1.why are teams refered to 'franchises'? pretty much says it all, doesn't it? money is everything... 2.why do teams move around? i've never understood why it so common for 'franchises' to move to another city whenever they want...

You have just proven my point with your "inconsistencies as any theory" line. Evolution (or Darwinism) is a theory. It is not fact. It should be taught as a theory, but nothing more. I might be able to get my point across better if I put it like this: No creation theory (scientific, religious, or otherwise) can be proven to be fact. This is because we simply DO NOT know. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. why don't creationist get their facts straight before discussing things like these? you're really making a fool of yourself. evolution is a proven fact, while the evolution theory is a scientific theory. just as gravitation is a fact, while the gravitation theory is a scientific theory. both based on solid empirical evidence, but only the former questioned by religious nut jobs... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To you evolution is a fact, thats just another point of view on how to look at truth and science. Another View is that Christianity is a factm according to Master Dakari. I believe that this is relative, subjective. Science does not think of its theories as facts. Maybe the scientists do, but science itself does not. Science has evolved from this because they have witnesses mistakes from the past so many times. A buddhist point of view is that we can never know the truth because its always changing. How do we know we ever absolutely have truth if we don't know everything about something? Its a hard step to make. So we have to take all the knowledge we have and make an objective guess. Science has tweaked these guesses to be consistant. Sciences statistics are consistant, and works great, Im behind it 100% percent! Although correlation does not prove causation. Its an assumption that the cause is actaully the cause of the effect. I just try to remember this stuff to keep an open mind. This is my view im sharing with you. Throw it away if you want. Wiki Def of scientific Theory <{POST_SNAPBACK}> what the hell are you rambling on about? evolution, the natural phenomenon, is a fact. it is proven. the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. what creationists object to, is this concept they call 'macro evolution'. even they accept that evolution is a proven fact, but they refer to it as 'micro evolution'.

here is a clue for you, ever heard of falsifiability and popper? look it up, you could sure need it...

You have just proven my point with your "inconsistencies as any theory" line. Evolution (or Darwinism) is a theory. It is not fact. It should be taught as a theory, but nothing more. I might be able to get my point across better if I put it like this: No creation theory (scientific, religious, or otherwise) can be proven to be fact. This is because we simply DO NOT know. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. why don't creationist get their facts straight before discussing things like these? you're really making a fool of yourself. evolution is a proven fact, while the evolution theory is a scientific theory. just as gravitation is a fact, while the gravitation theory is a scientific theory. both based on solid empirical evidence, but only the former questioned by religious nut jobs...

lost started out brilliantly, but is now a joke. there is no progress whatsoever. what is this, 24? where each episode is one hour? it's getting ridicilous. ffs, get on with it!

That's just wrong. Reality is against you, as are the Germans themselves that have a dim outlook on their chances at the World Cup that they'll be hosting next year. Credit to the US - they've done very well and are getting better (great show at last WC) but they don't get tested seriously because of their geography. They usually play against caribbean teams, Mexico (which is rated). The best yardstick would probably be performances against the South Americans when they're invited to the Copa America - but even then it's against weakened sides since many of the top players don't want to leave Europe. I think many people underestimate USA, especially the Denmark dude that said they'd cane the USA. No. But neither is it realistic to say the USA is ahead of the old hands. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the us have a decent football team(!), but lack individul talent. that is why nobody cares about the us when it comes to football...

no, they reached the quarter finals. lost to germany...

sweden and denmark. there are a lot of great english footballers, but within the eu players can move freely. ergo the best players, usually, play for the best clubs. england can finish in the top 4 in 2006.

Tourney time is coming. We'll see We will see still, soccer is prolly like the 6th most popular pro sport (not counting nascar and such) in the US. Say what you will, but we're ranked 7th IN OUR SPARE TIME. You would give up a pinky to be ranked that high <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you did win the 'gold cup'... however, in the world cup you're basically a walk over. the ranking means nothing; the world cup everything. btw, international football is nothing compared to club football. that is the real sport, not some nationalistic crap...

::looks at all the pretty trophies:: Look, I'll give you one if you'll feel better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> football trophies...?

implants baby! calf and pec implants, that would rock!

as i said, it is because of massive drug use, but maybe you're high/stoned/tripping/whatever, so you didn't get that... americans like to cheat. you're a bunch of cowards. invading iraq because it's easy, but rolls over for china, north korea, *insert just about any other country in the world*... edit: how can it be 'name calling' if it's the truth? it won't help much, that's true, but it'll still do a little bit of good. especially politically and as a symbolic gesture...

http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/ran...,2540,3,00.html

good thing the fifa ranking is basically meaningless. besides, football will never be big in the us. you're too stupid, narrowminded, fat and your attention span is too short. oh, and btw, gee, i wonder who's wrong. the us or the rest of the world? 280 mill or 6 bill...?