[EDIT: Apparently off topic]

Yeah, that would be good... unless oil and food prices were expected to continue rising, which would help drive inflation, killing your finances.

Pirate day makes me sound like an idiot!

I'd like t' thank th' wild horses that dragged me t' th' stage t' perform in this movie!

Is not me!

> [TI]  The_Unknown wrote:

> @zarf

I don't believe god put those amino acids together to form life, if he created the universe, why would he care about such a small thing. It is arrogant and wrong for us to think we are oh so important.
The one way i can combine "evolution" or "science" with creationism is that some higher force (let's call that force god) created the big bang and then left it alone, and everything in the universe came from that big bang.
We know nothing at the point before the big bang so the statement that "god" made the big bang happen is a valid theory, though we still cannot know for sure.

And that's quite presumptuouos of you to assume a God that can't care about both large and small matters, especially considering that the natural universe as we know it is comprised both of large structures and small structures (atoms), regardless of life.

> [TI]  The_Unknown wrote:

> @ zarf

Please restate your original question then, i don't think i fully understand where you are going.

Gladiator got it.  Picture earth as if it was a chair.

"I built the chair!"
"The chair was built in a factory!"

One perscribes a creator to a creation, while the other describes the method.

Why, then, couldn't the following be true:

"I built the chair in a factory!"

If there's no conflict between evolution and creation, then you're both wasting time.

Iluvatar, aren't you done trolling yet?

> DPS wrote:

> So... Chance does exist, if you flip a coin can you guarantee 100% which side it will land on?  Or if you throw six dice down a flight of stairs is there anyway to predict where they land, what face is up, etc.  Now chance does exist in genetic mutation as well we see this in the form of birth defects.

Your own examples are bad examples of chance.  They only look like chance because there's unknown variables.
Coin: Based on the force of the flip, the angle of the flip, distance between the starting and end point, wind speed, air pressure, etc.
Die: Similar.  It's all math.

What about "We never wanted you as a colony anyway" and "Yeah, and we could still kick your butt, even if France won't back us!" day, to settle the age-old question of whether it is spelt "honor" or "honour."  One day, we replace American English with British English, and the next day, do the opposite! 

Nope!

Shroud?

The problem here is that you're grouping "environmentalist groups" into one giant category, which just isn't fair.

Remember, alot of these groups have particular interests that they want preserved.  One may be focused on animal welfare (Sierra Club comes to mind), while another may be concerned with greenhouse gases.  The problem is that each type of power trades off with one form of environmental protection or another.

Let's take one of the more obscure examples: methane capture.  Pretty simple process: capture methane produced at farms from animal waste, and burn the methane as a power source.  Sierra Club hates this system because it means large farms that contain animals would have an easier time dealing with all their [manure] (no pun intended), since current regulation forces CAFOs to set up storage pools for animal manure.

So the Sierra Club wants a power source that doesn't encourage animal abuse.  Hmm... nuclear power may seem viable.  Though nuclear waste is obviously going to provoke some other group coming on the offensive.  What will they say in response?  "We don't need nuclear power, when we have all these other potential power sources we can use!"

The issue isn't environmentalist groups all united against any power sources.  It's that environmentalist groups are fragmented, splintered, and fighting amongst each other because each has their own primary concern of what should be protected.

Honestly, I think the best choice is to let these groups fight it out, and for congressmen to sort of push an agenda that tells these groups that SOME alternative energy source is inevitable, and it's only a decision of which one.  I know this is a horrible representation, but ideally, it would look like a piece of legislation with a big blank line where Congress will fill in which energy source to use, and ask for amendments in the legislation.  Let the environmentalist lobbies fight it out amongst each other until one group is thrown under the bus, or allow them to reach a consensus vote about some obscure technology we're all forgetting about.