zapatos

I remember: The milk man delivering milk to our back door. Hobos knocking on our door hoping for a meal. Which they always got and ate on the back porch. The nuns hitting us if we had a smart mouth. Shampoo bottles made of glass. You can imagine the results of that. My dad fixing his own roof. 'Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." When no cars had air conditioning. How in every generation in my family for all of history, the wife cooked, cleaned, and waited on her husband. Until my generation. Damn! Candy cigarettes. Cigarette ads on television that touted their health benefits. Playing with mercury that was on the ground over by the factory. We'd push it around and try to scoop it up into little bottles. Young ladies hitchhiking. The guy building an addition to our house without using any power tools. (They were available, he was at the end of that generation.) Not one of the kids I hung around with had parents who were divorced. Making toy soldiers by melting lead and pouring it into molds. Cutting asbestos tiles and siding. If your dog or cat got sick, instead of taking it to the vet you'd get a new one when it died.

I don't believe this is possible. Unless of course they were actually Russian scientists in Afghanistan. That would be a completely different story!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

It looks to me as if once I vote either way for a post I am barred from voting on that post ever again.

Russian version of a Rickroll. Not something I'd play at a party. Well, maybe if my mom was having a party...

Sorry, don't mean to seem dense. Is it that he "does not see himself travelling into the past"?

Why would we expect him to see himself traveling into the future?

JustinW, Sorry to turn this into a logical fallacy conspiracy, but you said: Not one of your links mentioned one word about religious based institutions or contraception. The groundskeepers get angry when you move the goalposts... Just sayin'

Look in the mirror where I see something. What I 'saw' is "the table in half". Two halves make a whole. I crawl through the hole. ?????

'Good reason' is in the eye of the beholder. Some things are worth taking a risk for.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

From your link:

I think those are stormwater canals.

I suppose it is quite easy for life to start if the conditions are right. And that it is quite difficult if the conditions are wrong. A better question might have been "How difficult is it for the right conditions for life to exist?" Or "How difficult is it to determine what the right conditions for life are?"

Is it true that the only thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it was hotter and denser than it is now?

I think time moves along at one second per second. I don't know what it means to 'break' speed so I don't know how to answer the question of whether or not things will go faster if speed is broken.

What I'm not getting is an answer to my question.

Sorry if I seem rude, but you have got to be kidding. How long do you think a Catholic hospital will be in business if they suddenly drop health insurance for all of their nurses? What would happen en masse is the nurses heading for the door.

Those posts were all before my time. And something did the trick as talking to you and looking at your profile picture gave me absolutely no hint of the things you've talked about in this thread. Assuming that was how you hoped to present yourself, I have to say, Nicely Done!

The question of how 'certain' you can know about something that happened 14 billion years ago aside, my primary issue with your statement was the assertion that "the only real thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it appears to become hotter and denser". Are you suggesting all of the other descriptions of what was happening in the early universe are false, or that there is zero doubt about the 'hotter and denser' issue and some non-zero doubt about everything else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

In my opinion it is reasonable and supported by the Constitution that houses of worship not be required to supply contraception to their employees via health plans. People seeking employment at such institutions were well aware of what type of organization they were applying to. I also believe it is reasonable and supported by the Constitution that religious based institutions such as Catholic hospitals be required to supply contraception to their employees via health plans. Religious based organizations seeking to create public businesses were well aware they would be required to follow laws regarding wages and work hours; safety and health standards; health benefits, retirement standards and workers compensation; and other workplace standards. These laws are in place to protect workers and neither religious organization nor any other group should be allowed to impose those own standards to the detriment of those standards set by law. This country is based on the rights of the individuals, not the rights of religious institutions. If people do not want to be required to abide by a religion then they should not join that religion or work at that church. If religious institutions do not wish abide by laws governing public institutions then they should not create public institutions. If I am a Muslim and do not believe women should be allowed to drive cars, it is not reasonable of me start a cab company and expect that I can refuse to hire women simply because of my religion. It is not acceptable. My religious beliefs do not and should not overide laws regarding child labor, minimum wage, safety, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnzyzsOqMOY

I question whether this statement is accurate also. Seems to me scientists know much more than that, although I'm not sure the use of the word 'certain' is appropriate in any case.

You first.