Lost Data

[Thorne]

Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.

While it's true that Texas may have the legal right to secede, it's doubtful they would have the economic stability to survive such an act. Especially when the religious nuts who are trying to destroy the Texas Board of Education get the power to push the state back into the dark ages. Without the power of the US Constitution to keep them in check I have no doubt they would manage to virtually destroy the education system in Texas within one year of secession.

And good riddance to 'em!

[IAN 2411]

"(S)ome god fearing people have moved on and believe in science and evolution." Excuse me? One can not believe is science and evolution and be God fearing? Methinks you need to refresh your history of scientific advancement. The majority of which came either from the church, men of faith, or sponsored by the church!

Your data on the numbers of RCs is partly correct. There are one billion RCs, which is over one-half of all christians. Therefore the RCs by themselves are as numerous as the Chinese. Then if one considers adding The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics become 1.3 billion(still about 1/6). At about 17% this dwarfs the worlds number of atheists, who approximate 2.3%

Ok lets get this right If you were god fearing and you have moved on, it means you no longer believe in god but science and evolution, that was the point i was making and while we are about scoring points. My data apart from the atheists is perfectly correct, i failed to mention that atheists are part of the Nontheist group, and they number 11%, meaning still that you are correct that the Catholic church out number them. I am but a mear mortal and lible to make mistakes.

Wicipedia: -

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians[note 2] and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion of the Western, or (Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008. The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope,[15] currently Pope Benedict XVI, who holds supreme authority in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head.[16][17][18] The Catholic community is made up of an ordained ministry and the laity; members of either group may belong to organized religious communities.[19]

The men of faith are self proclaimed, they do it because it is their firm belief, then they push their philosaphy down our throats. Get real it is just a big club.

Lighten up, you are picking weak holes.

Regards ian

[skp2bear]

I strongly disagree with you Thorne. Even the army-navy game has a prayer before it. also the doctrine of evolution has been proven to be fals in many instances. presenting both views as equals should be taught as both are correct. The theory of evolutions says we all came from a single cell. That does not contradict religious view except for the few literalists who forget that three different creation stories are told in the first three chapters of Genesis. What the authors are trying to say is that a supreme being started everything. How else can you explain where that first cell came from or even the right elements and conditions necessary to produce it

[DuncanONeil]

I would have to say no. I am sure some disagree but the US has not "imposed" its own way of being as Rome did!

Has the USA become too imperial with the rest of the world?

If we truely wish to be a "New Rome" than do we also not have the same implied nessesity of establishing wise dominion, so as to at least avoid the pitfalls of complancency that lead to Romes fall? (Or any Empire/nation etc)

[DuncanONeil]

Copenhagen is a joke. As for commercial empires. No country on the planet can survive on its own resources anymore! Therefore a world market is in the interests of the world. As it stands our greatest export is capital goods and greatest import is industrial supplies!

You could be right, but not for the reasons you suggest, and I think you do not speak for most Brits. In fact, most Brits want their boys out of Afghanistan and wish they'd never gone in there at all ... We of all nations must know how futile it is to try to subdue the Afghans.

But we are there, along with America and our European allies: France, Poland, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria,
Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Portugal, Ukraine, Ireland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria, Belgium, Croatia, Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, and Luxembourg. As well as, of couse, many non-European nations.

We have more people out there than they do? So what? All that proves is that we are more belligerent than they are - something that never needed proving. But isn't it good to see how our rebellious offspring follows in our footsteps so closely?


Constantinople? Very good, den! Although it fell before Rome did, and I believe the adherents of the Western Church sacked that city long before the Turks got there. I'm not sure how the parallels run here, but I'd hate either Europe or USA to turn against the other in the pretence of rescuing it.

As far as I can see, America's imperialism is represented by a commercial empire. Politically, the USA seems to be introverted, xenophobic and wholly self-interested. The contrast is irreconcilable! Politically it has few "overseas territories" (Newspeak for "colonies"), but its business interests reach into every country in the world.

Inevitably, USA will diminish and fall, just like every other imperial power before it, and new ones - China, India, Russia (yes, you read that right) and Brazil, will take over ... for a while. Meanwhile, we would all be grateful for as much benign wisdom as the US is able to show the world, starting with Copenhagen.

[DuncanONeil]

But don't you remember that the current Speaker promised us the "most ethical Congress ever" when she took up the gavel. And the President promised an end to business as usual in Washington and his administration would be the most transparent ever?

I guess that is why the bills presented are over 2000 pages and multiple versions, so they can be transparent. And that is the same reason the bills are crafted out of the view of the public (and the minority as well). Then there all the time limits, usually less time than it would take to read the bill, for passage.

Wow, sounds familiar. Methinks it is EXACTLY what we're going through right now with the American government!

[DuncanONeil]

In reality, short of giving everyone the exact same amount of money, it is impossible to eliminate poverty.

I have no problem with the idea of a federal Europe. Remember the USA is a federation of states, and it has done very nicely as a result. Canada and Australia, too. So why resist the idea in Europe?

It is no more practical now for Britain to leave the EU than it would be for Texas to leave the USA, and if it came to a choice between the EU and the Commonwealth, it is obvious which way the country would have to go ... but here's a thought ... why not offer special relationships with the EU to all Commonwealth nations - or even membership!

After all, the EU is really only a rich man's club, and to admit third world nations (as well as Canada, Australia, and the rest of the wealthier Commonwealth countries - assuming they wanted to) would actually do something constructive to tackle world poverty, as well as creating a counterbalance to USA and China.

[DuncanONeil]

Hey I am not an encyclopedia I am a real live girl! lol

I just happen to be a history student is all.

Whats ironic is many of the EU's growing pains are things the USA has allready went through a long time ago. Of course it took a Civil War before we finally solidified true Federal control over the individual states. Lets hope Eruope avoids that one!

Actually the Federal Government has no right to exercise control over the States. The powers of the Feds is strictly limited, something the Feds have forgotten, or choose to ignore. All other powers remain in the perview of the States.

As for Europe and Great Brittan being allied with the USA, lets face it people, after litterally saving europe twice (once in WW2 and once in the subsequent cold war against the Soviets after)(you all sure dont have to speak german or russian now do ya?) a certian degree of cooporation is natural for continued economic posterity as well as security. Furthermore its perfectly natural that our relationship is going to be closer with the one parent country that wasnt on the other side or remained neutral and still kept its sovernity as an ally from the get go.

Having included the Cold War then that count would have to be three. You forgot to include WW1

Its really no different than our relationships with Taiwan and Japan VS the rest of Asia in some ways, but seriously, does anyone think the USA will ever stand against Brittan over another country so long as Brittan stands with us?

[DuncanONeil]

So was California! And the right retained by Texas is the right to subdivide into, I believe, a total of five smaller states.

Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.

[DuncanONeil]

You mean the US educational system has not yet been destroyed?

While it's true that Texas may have the legal right to secede, it's doubtful they would have the economic stability to survive such an act. Especially when the religious nuts who are trying to destroy the Texas Board of Education get the power to push the state back into the dark ages. Without the power of the US Constitution to keep them in check I have no doubt they would manage to virtually destroy the education system in Texas within one year of secession.

And good riddance to 'em!

[DuncanONeil]

Not picking weak holes. Your data on the number of Catholics and Christians is backwards. I suggest you read that Wiki section again. The RCs are over one billion and that represents more than half of all Christians. Therefore the total number of Christians is nearer two billion, or one-third of the population!
And as for the "big club" I am of the position that doing so is not christian.

Ok lets get this right If you were god fearing and you have moved on, it means you no longer believe in god but science and evolution, that was the point i was making and while we are about scoring points. My data apart from the atheists is perfectly correct, i failed to mention that atheists are part of the Nontheist group, and they number 11%, meaning still that you are correct that the Catholic church out number them. I am but a mear mortal and lible to make mistakes.

Wicipedia: -

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians[note 2] and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion of the Western, or (Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008. The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope,[15] currently Pope Benedict XVI, who holds supreme authority in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head.[16][17][18] The Catholic community is made up of an ordained ministry and the laity; members of either group may belong to organized religious communities.[19]

The men of faith are self proclaimed, they do it because it is their firm belief, then they push their philosaphy down our throats. Get real it is just a big club.

Lighten up, you are picking weak holes.

Regards ian

[Thorne]

the doctrine of evolution has been proven to be fals in many instances.

That's misleading. Evolution is a fact. We know it happens.We see it all around us. There is no debate among mainstream scientists about this. The MECHANISMS of evolution are still being debated. Some have shown to be weak, others grow stronger. But these are simply our attempts at understanding a fact, just like gravity.

presenting both views as equals should be taught as both are correct.

If you mean evolution and creationism, then no, they are not both correct. They are mutually exclusive.

What the authors are trying to say is that a supreme being started everything.

If you want to believe that a supernatural being started it all by creating the universe and allowing life to evolve, that's all well and good, but you have to have evidence before you can present it as science. Otherwise it's faith, and has no place in the science classroom.

How else can you explain where that first cell came from or even the right elements and conditions necessary to produce it

Science has shown that living cells can be produced by chemical reactions under the proper conditions. It has been shown that the entire universe can be explained, logically and consistently, without benefit of supernatural intervention, from approximately one millisecond (maybe less) after the Big Bang.

What we cannot explain (yet) is what happened before and at the precise moment of the Big Bang. What caused it? Where did the matter come from? Many other questions. If you wish to postulate a god of some kind initiating it, that's fine. There's no one to say you are wrong. But without evidence, you cannot claim you are right. You can only have faith.

[DuncanONeil]

I take exception to the statement that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive!!!!

As to that millisecond after the bang, That still leaves an awful lot of time unaccounted for.

That's misleading. Evolution is a fact. We know it happens.We see it all around us. There is no debate among mainstream scientists about this. The MECHANISMS of evolution are still being debated. Some have shown to be weak, others grow stronger. But these are simply our attempts at understanding a fact, just like gravity.

If you mean evolution and creationism, then no, they are not both correct. They are mutually exclusive.


If you want to believe that a supernatural being started it all by creating the universe and allowing life to evolve, that's all well and good, but you have to have evidence before you can present it as science. Otherwise it's faith, and has no place in the science classroom.


Science has shown that living cells can be produced by chemical reactions under the proper conditions. It has been shown that the entire universe can be explained, logically and consistently, without benefit of supernatural intervention, from approximately one millisecond (maybe less) after the Big Bang.

What we cannot explain (yet) is what happened before and at the precise moment of the Big Bang. What caused it? Where did the matter come from? Many other questions. If you wish to postulate a god of some kind initiating it, that's fine. There's no one to say you are wrong. But without evidence, you cannot claim you are right. You can only have faith.

[denuseri]

I did not forget WW1 Duncan, any historian will tell you its way way to arguable as to weather our late involvment actually saved Eroupe, in the same way at all as WW2. In WW1 we came over a day late and a dollar short with a shovel to "help", in WW2 we came over with a bulldozer.

Any student of the Federalist Papers (which btw is the handbook for constitutional interpetation for the high court) can tell you that the Federal Governemnet must and will hold dominion over that of the states if it wished for the country as a whole to survive. With Homeland Security in full swing, that dominions grip just got a little tighter.

Go ask the Civil War buffs about "State's Rights" lol.

[Thorne]

I take exception to the statement that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive!!!!
As to that millisecond after the bang, That still leaves an awful lot of time unaccounted for.

I said creationism, not creation, but your point is noted. I should have said "Biblical" Creation, or Genesis. It's quite possible that some kind of being began creation in that millisecond of time. As soon as you provide the evidence for it I'll be happy to adjust my belief system.

Just don't expect me to kneel down and sing his or her or its praises.

[MMI]

Deleted by author

[MMI]

Deleted by author

OK, as there seems to be a pause for thought in this thread, I am posting this message as an aside and for information's sake (not as a corrective). In addition to Texas and Hawaii, California, Vermont and New Hampshire have also been independent nations, and it is now inconceivable that any of them would be allowed to leave the Union, not even to join Canada, regardless of what the treaties by which they joined originally said.

[denuseri]

Precisely my point MMI.

So is that in Europes future?

Or are we looking at one big government for all?

[Thorne]

Posted by mistake.

[MMI]

It could quite possibly be the outcome of a federal Europe.

Currently there is a procedure for leaving the EU, but it's never been used (except by colonies upon gaining independence, such as Greenland). Upon federation, that procedure will become as unlikely to be used as Texas is to leave USA.

[DuncanONeil]

I said creationism, not creation, but your point is noted. I should have said "Biblical" Creation, or Genesis. It's quite possible that some kind of being began creation in that millisecond of time. As soon as you provide the evidence for it I'll be happy to adjust my belief system.

Just don't expect me to kneel down and sing his or her or its praises.

I still see no difference in the terms. Nor do I see any dicotomy in believing in both. For me the fact that you admit a possibility is actually sufficient.
Should there be a creator, even considering the Bible, we would have no concept of what a day constitutes for said being. Nor when they were satisfied with their work.

[DuncanONeil]

OK, as there seems to be a pause for thought in this thread, I am posting this message as an aside and for information's sake (not as a corrective). In addition to Texas and Hawaii, California, Vermont and New Hampshire have also been independent nations, and it is now inconceivable that any of them would be allowed to leave the Union, not even to join Canada, regardless of what the treaties by which they joined originally said.

In spite of what many people think Texas never retained the right to leave the Union at its own desire. It can however subdivide into smaller states!

[Thorne]

I still see no difference in the terms. Nor do I see any dicotomy in believing in both. For me the fact that you admit a possibility is actually sufficient.
Should there be a creator, even considering the Bible, we would have no concept of what a day constitutes for said being. Nor when they were satisfied with their work.

Believing in it is one thing. Finding evidence for it is quite another. But regardless of how you want to define the biblical "day", the entire sequence of creation as shown in Genesis is wrong. Therefor impossible. After all, how can you have light on the first day but the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. And the earth coming before the sun? Um, I don't think that would work.

[Bren122]

There is an essential divide at the heart of the European ideal (Germany v France v Britain) that would make it unlikely that Europe will ever be a true Federation like the US or Australia.

At the moment the only countries that count are Britain, France and Germany. No other nation has the same political, military and economic strength of these three. No other nation in Europe has the capacity to challenge them for leadership- and they have no compelling interest to see either of their rivals elevated to a position of authority. Put quite simply there are more reasons for maintaining the current arrangement which allows independent action.

[denuseri]

So its politics as ussual then huh?

That figues, the only thing thats changed over here is which asshole is in charge lol.

[MMI]

What bren says may be true, but isn't it ironic that the origins of the EU lie in an attempt to prevent any further rise of extreme nationalism after WW2, and the Coal and Steel Community was said to be the first step in the federalisation of Europe.

However, I do believe that, eventually federalisation will come about, despite our differences. After all, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a union of 4 countries which still consider themselves distinct form each other, have separate legal systems, administrations and culture - some would say that the English have more in common with Americans than with Scots or Irish, and the Scots might find greater kinship with Canadians or Australians than with the English or Welsh. Germany is itself a federation of German principalities and dukedoms, and Italy was formed from a number of independent city states and kingdoms, each of which retains its own identity still. So why not all of Europe eventually?

I'm sure someone, some day, will manage to accumulate enough power to himself to govern Europe as its President, rather than the weak form of presidency it currently has. I personally believe there is more to gain from federalisation than there is to lose.

[IAN 2411]

There is an essential divide at the heart of the European ideal (Germany v France v Britain) that would make it unlikely that Europe will ever be a true Federation like the US or Australia.

At the moment the only countries that count are Britain, France and Germany. No other nation has the same political, military and economic strength of these three. No other nation in Europe has the capacity to challenge them for leadership- and they have no compelling interest to see either of their rivals elevated to a position of authority. Put quite simply there are more reasons for maintaining the current arrangement which allows independent action.

You have a very good point Bren and i am not against what you are saying, but i also believe that at some point things will have to change. At the moment America is dictating without saying a word, and one reason is that their President is the most powerful man in the western world. America is rich, it is powerful on sea, air and land, and the cobination of France, Germany and GB does not get even close. For these three countries that are always bickering at each other to come together, there would have to be a world wide crisis; but even then i think that it would be a coalition of Premiers. One such event would be that the ballance has been tipped towards the United States so much that Europe would be in fear of them. I know this sounds harsh and unreal but shit happens in life, there would then be teritoriel battening down of the hatches. I am not talking about war i am talking about European fear of powerful nations, and that is why Europe has been picking at the British powers for the last twenty years. Russia would not get involved unles they feared a Mongolian/Chinese and asian invasion, and it too would look to Europe, because Russia might be a big country but it still vulnerable from the south. This might not happen in my life time, and it might not happen in yours, but I think that it is the next process in world order. There will be no named federation, there will be only The Americas, Europe as one, and asia, and after all this has been achieved there will still be uncertainty and fear, it is human nature to be untrusting.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

... For [France, Germany and GB] that are always bickering at each other to come together, there would have to be a world wide crisis; but even then i think that it would be a coalition of Premiers ...

The question then is, what happens after the crisis passes? Will the three Premiers go their separate ways, or will the most influential/powerful of them want to stay in charge?

[DuncanONeil]

Believing in it is one thing. Finding evidence for it is quite another. But regardless of how you want to define the biblical "day", the entire sequence of creation as shown in Genesis is wrong. Therefor impossible. After all, how can you have light on the first day but the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. And the earth coming before the sun? Um, I don't think that would work.

Our ligt comes from the Sun, Now!

[Thorne]

Our ligt comes from the Sun, Now!

Great! So where did the light come from before the sun and stars were created? Just a generalized glow throughout the universe?