fauxlaw

What is this hang-up with rice? I merely said that rice paddies emit CH4 into the atmosphere, as do natural wetlands, rivers, lakes and oceans, not that it is more important than humans. Let's not exacerbate an obvious disagreement, or hurl epithets about what I know and don't know, because YOU DON'T KNOW BLOODY SQUAT ABOUT ME. Period.  See https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/4_7_CH4_Rice_Agriculture.pdf

thx. I'm new to DA. will check

No. Not in. Have no idea of the game protocol, but interested. Will watch this one. Can I ask you questions along the way?

Ah! a great subject. As a writer and illustrator, copyright may not be my bread and butter, although it is, but it is certainly the jam. My take is that beyond my death, my surviving family has already had the benefit of my largesse, and will inherit everything I have forgotten to take with me. That means everything not in my head, I guess. They'll be ok without an extended copyright, not because I'm Michelangelo, but because my father taught principles of ambition, planning, and execution. I've applied that to investing and the in of the vest has been very good to me.

True, but which country in Europe is as populated with 330M people? 20% of Russia is 29M. of Germany, 16M. These are the two most populated of Europe. 20% of USA? 66M, right now. In 10 years? 

Make FICA another sales tax, etc, you lose a handle on what's for retirement and what's for the general fund, let alone the interest earned.

Sure, but 3/4 of GDP is driven by private money, and we ought to not penalize the people who create it by taxing them more. The engine that is most efficient, and beneficial for all is that engine that is more self-sufficient in use of energy supplied to it. You create more energy by encouraging more people to be more self-sufficient,  than those who weigh down the engine by just adding greater weight to the vehicle it moves. Better to have a greater self-sufficient class than an equivalent, or greater entitlement class.

sorry, that was entirely in jest. Don't take it personally. Besides, I'm called that all the time. But, no excuses. I am ashamed on myself and beg your forgiveess

I might be, but that's my business. Thanks

There is commentary on repetition expecting different results, but far be it from me to be coerced t explain it.

Sure. Manipulate away. But the original document we have is not the Bible, though it claims "...Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." [Genesis 1: 26] That is God speaking. God is a title, not a name. And the references "our image" and "our likeness" would indicate we have a quorum of gods effecting the creation, not just one. Sure, you can argue that its the royal third person at play, but that God, who, in the Torah, is identified as "Elohim" is a term signifying a plurality.

Before the Bible, we have a document of Creation, itself, which continues to unroll, as a scroll, to demonstrate its "...grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 2nd - 6th editions] A grandeur that exhibits a pattern set by the gods who organized it. There are generations of all life, all producing the same effects as their ancestry, with the wonder of diversity of variation, some variations good, and some not, but still, at the root, demonstrating an inherited pattern: such as god being a man, once, and a man becoming a god. It's called evolution, dummy.

Right on, bro.

In addition, we downplay the effect tat Trump is having by pushing new trade deals.  I believe the reason GDP has lagged for so long, regardless of DJiA performance - last 3 weeks excepted, but which has the obvious exterior cause - is because of the 40-year effect caused by the continuous negative export/import ratio from disastrous trade deals Trump has been harping about ever since his campaign. That he is correcting the negative trend will see that ratio reverse to a net positive export condition, and GDP will soar. The trade ratio right now is the only factor of GDP [consumer spending, business investment, government spending and net positive export] that is not pumping on all cylinders.

I will throw a concept that may disturb, thrill, confuse, and maybe you reject. Up to you.

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." - Lorenzo Snow.

It's as Occam's razor as I can conceive of the relationship man has to God, who declared, upon the making of his ultimate creation, "...Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness..." Genesis 1: 26. Since we are made in His image, albeit imperfectly for now, in our mortal state, why should we aspire to anything but to become like Him? Since we are created in His image, that image is a physical being, perfect, ultimately holy, ultimately omnipresent and omnipotent, and eternally our Father, the Great I Am.

However, for any ladies out there, I refer you to the Sistine Chapel ceiling painting by my hero, Michelangelo, specifically the center panel he called The Creation of Adam. Note that Adam's creation is at arm's length, not quite even touching as Adam reclines, on earth, separate from the Eternal Father. Meanwhile, observe who is directly to God's left, held in the embrace of His left arm and shoulder, a red-headed woman, whose hand upon His arm is lovingly placed in adoration. This, ladies, is Eve, so Michelangelo, himself, said, and I consider this to be the true ultimate creation: the Mother of all Living. Adam's creation at arm's length; Eve's is within God's embrace, just as it should have been. Never sell yourselves short, ladies. That is how much you are loved by your Creator, and we sholud follow suit.

Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Dem presidents could have done these things, but none did. 
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Does he deserve 5 more, or what? Impeachment? For making progress? I thought the Democrats were progressive. Guess not.

Here’s Trump playing Cyrano de Bergerac in a rebuttal argument to Pelostomy using the same tactic as when Cyrano described his nose:
You might have said a hundred things by varying the tone:
Architectural: it’s a wall
Combative: It’s a barrier
Challenging: It’s an obstacle
Landscaping: It’s a berm
Theatrical: It’s a curtain
Political: It’s a partition
Cynical: It’s a sidewalk crack
Vague: It’s a fog
Philosophical: A door is a wall when closed. Open, it’s nothing.
Tyrannical: It’s to keep you in.
Romantic: It’s a balcony
Medieval: It’s a moat
Movie epic: It’s A Fistful of Dollars
Music epic: It’s Pink Floyd’s The Wall.

"Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The policy prohibiting personal attacks applies site-wide--in debates, forums, private messages, and everywhere else on the site." - Code of Conduct. You've been reported, my friend. Naught to add.

1. The sun is reborn on 12/25? No. Winter Solstice is on 12/21±1 day, and, at that, only in the Northern Hemisphere. In the Southern Hemisphere it's on June 21±1 day. Not to mention that that Earth's hemispheres do not have cause of anything relative to the sun unless we are, after all, a geocentric universe. We're not. And Jesus is actually figured to have been born in spring, late March to early April, around the Spring Equinix, and coincidentally, around Passover. Dec. 25th was a pagan holiday Christianity usurped.

2. Your sun's passage through the Zodiac constellations is, again, a phenomenon of a geocentric perspective, when, in actual fact, many of the visible stars in our earth's night sky [and daylight, too, if we could see them] are outside our galaxy since we are on the Milky Way's edge, and they are, individually variable light years away from one another. Their recognizable patterns exist only as such from a geocentric view. Therefore, from a cosmic perspective, there is not pattern to them at all but by our jaded view. 

3. The sun's journey has naught to do with the earth-perspective zodiac. It orbits the center of the Milky Way, not in one earth year, but in 225 to 240M earth years, meaning that in the entire history of man on earth, the sun has yet to complete a single orbit.

4. The sun is about 20 light years from Aquarius 𝛂, Sadalsuud.

Need I continue? You astrological "pretty strong evidence" is nonsensical in all 19 cases. What's significant about 19? We don't have a clue where Jesus was or what he was doing at that age. Maybe he was having seances with Fatima-May, the card-shark lay. Flawed human perspective is what you have, created to provide primitive explanation of the cosmos. Today, we use science, yeah? You remember, the stuff that proves climatology is just 200 years old and not "in" by millennia yet to go. Be careful when the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. You'll go around claiming children like to rub your leg hair.

Yeah, except the crucifixion and resurrection occurred in the late week of Passover in late March to April.

Just heard a good joke:

If we really want to kill the Covid-19, all we need to do is tell Hillaryous Balloon Girl that the virus has dirt on her. Her mafia will take care of that virus pronto!

Who made you a tester? By your word, you.

For the simple reason that Obama's "recovery" was effective only because it was induced by artificial application in three iterations of quantitative easement; essentially flooding the market with printed money to buy government bonds [and adding to the debt]. This had unintended consequences. First, the July 2011 loss of the US triple-A credit rating, costing us added billions of dollars in interest-added debt. Second, each infusion, while having the effect of a market rise, each infusion and boost was followed by a decline, simply because the market could not sustain the boost by natural sustained growth. In the end, had the market, then, been a sustained rise such as we have seen over the last three years [until the last 3-weeks which is not a market-driven loss, but by the effects of Covid-19] Trump would not have taken over at DJIA 18,800 pointss [approx]; he would have inherited a market of 5,000 to 6,000 points greater.  Those are the combined losses that occurred during the market in Obama's administration. All things considered, Obama's economy barely broke even.

By contrast, the market since Trump's inauguration [really, since his election] has grown on its own natural confidence by investors, not by Q.E.

Affecting only #1:

The slavery issue may be compelling by your argument, but it can be argued that on the side of the fetus, it, too, may be subject to the force of will of the pregnant woman, and a violation of its rights. According to FindLaw.com[1]“Children are also entitled to due process…” Granted, this stipulates fully born entities, and the argument that children [minors] do not enjoy the fullness of rights afforded to adults, nevertheless, children have access to due process. That is good enough for this argument: The 14A, clause 1 states, “nor shall any State deprive any personof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [italics added for emphasis], then even a child has the right to life. Okay, how old? 
 
Granted, a fully-born minor child is not the same, by apparent legal definition, as a fetus, viz: 
 
1 U.S.C. §8 [a] “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”[italics added for emphasis] 
 
[b] “As used in this section, the term “born alive” with respect to a member of the species Homo sapiens,means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” [italics added for emphasis]
 
[c] "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."
 
I quote the third clause only because it contains a conundrum relative to The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 in which the murder of a pregnant woman that also causes the death of the fetus is a double-charge of murder, thus affording the extension, in contradiction to 1 U.S.C. §8 [c], of a “person” to the unborn fetus. Should a fetus be limited to its right of due process only because it is the victim of a violate act? Or, even, as highlighted in 1 U.S.C. §8 [b], “an induced abortion” which may, or may not result in the death by the artificial extraction of the fetus?
 
Relative to the legal commentary of 1 U.S.C. §8,Homo sapiensis “…every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” The success “born alive” is occurring at earlier and earlier points in development due to advances in medical technology. The record is currently at 22 weeks[2]with a 15% survival rate to at least one year. If the gestation period is reducing, should “born alive” remain the standard as if it only means full gestation?
 

I don't mind the inclusion of the pretzel, but just dark chocolate and sea salt together are a fabulous taste sensation. Both enhance the flavor of the other such that the sum is much greater than the parts. But then, dark chocolate [the higher the percentage of cocoa butter, the better, and the less sugar, the better] is a major food group.

For example: a Christmas card I once composed, printed and sent:

Think it not strange if heaven has a care

To justice, good, forthright and fair,

If, after our Lord bring us there,

He'll serve us chocolate all seasons of the year.

and the next year:

And it's name shall be Wonderful, Confectioner,

The Mighty Good, the Everlasting Flavor,

The Prince of Pieces.

Some argue that Edison was his light bulb. I suppose the link is valid as descriptive of the effort, but I would not say that Edison is just the light bulb. I question the limitation of 'just.' Same for Jesus Christ and the sun.

I'm no mathematician, but, so far, I perceive premature efactulation in a tesseract

Read the concluding paragraph of On the Origin of Species along with all before it. The volume discusses the four points of Darwinism: variation, inheritance, selection, and time.

I note, for example, that you do not engage in debate, and have not done so for 2.5 years. If you want to challenge, there's your venue.

Who made you tester? Who says you have the answers? Who says that's even necessary? Give your opinion, allow others theirs. Otherwise, make your question honest posits, not logic traps.

Recession is a factor engaged only when two quarters - six months - of no growth occur. However, DJIA does not figure directly into GDP. Consumer spending, Business investment, Government spending, and net export/import ratio are the four factors directly addressing Real GDP. Last quarter [Q4 2019] was a growth of 2.3% over Q3 2019, at 2.0%. The projection for Q1 2020 was 2.7%, most because of anticipated correction on the negative export condition improving. We're still 2 weeks from Q1 results. Even if the results do not match or exceed 2.3%, it will take another quarter [June] of loss before we even officially enter a recession. If Q1 does exceed 2/3%, then recession will not be declared until end Q3, Sep 2020 id Q3 drops below Q2. Can't watch DJIA. Watch Real GDP.

I did not misread your point. I read your previous commentary quoted above. And I responded by advocating that God has existed infinitely into the past, exists now, and will into the infinite future. One of His names is "Eternal." Another is "I Am," [implying that it is, has been, and will always be so - it is so Descartes]. God is not dependent on man; it is the reverse. Your ending question regarding the demise of earth implies that you've already satisfied your own question whether or not God depends on man. Why ask?

For a cosmic thinker, why do you limit your avatar to  your numbered lines, etc. to their finite forms, though repeated ad nauseam, as if it represented the infinite cosmos. Everybody likes reducing their cosmos to a finite graphic. Mathematics is the infinite language of the cosmos; use formulae, not graphics, if that is your aim.

As for my interest and knowledge in science, do not presume you know me. You do not. End of subject. Try also to maintain the same case of pronouns instead of wandering from me to "their." Language has a science, too, and it does not goosey, goosey, gander, whither shall it wander. Nor is the cosmos, by the way, contained by polyhedrons. Suffering would lessen far more if we just toned-down the rhetoric of our assumptions of how stupid everyone else is, but cosmic thinkers. You want facts; there's your science.

What is so abhorrent about the idea that God and the universe have always existed? What is so bloody difficult about conceiving an eternity: no beginning, and no end. And even the possibility that there are infinite universes with infinite Gods?Just because the Kalam cosmology says that only things with beginnings have cause, and that, therefore the universe had a beginning, does that make it the only possible description of the universe? Seems to me, thinking the universe had a finite beginning is a more difficult proof than that it has neither beginning nor end. The former is limited thinking. Sure, you can argue for your limitations, but they're just yours. I don't happen to share them.

Infinite regress is a theory of explanation, but it entirely depends on the Kalam cosmology argument that the universe had a finite beginning because everything with a beginning has a cause, and, therefore, only by that finite beginning does the universe have purpose. Who says an eternity cannot have purpose and cause?

I contend that the entire re-development of the Kalam cosmology was because William Craig, a Christian theologian, and apologist, some claim, apparently cannot conceive the prospect of eternity, which combats infinite regress [an oxymoron, in my book] because it can imagine a first member of an element, but not a last. Or, rather a last element, but not the first. It is regression, after all; let's be consistent, That sounds like an admission of eternity, but the theory stops only because it cannot see a first member, but apparently assumes there must be one, but is ignored. The are all kinds of graphic representations of such a form as an infinite regress. All of them reflect a fractal image which eventually stops because there simply is no space to account for further "members" in a reducing vortex. But that discounts the potential of eternity in that eternity does not recognize a reduction at all. It simply isn't a vortex shape. I think the universe has no shape, but a best image to conceive it is an expanding sphere that never began as a singular point. No beginning. A regression backward [but why would someone need to do that?] that maintains the same scope as the future: expanding. Just because we cannot conceive it graphically does not imply that it cannot be. 

I don't have a reference for you to investigate further because this is my own thinking. But I abhor limited thinking, like ignoring an eternity simply because we cannot put it in a box, a vortex, or whatever other shape you want. Why do we need to present such a thing graphically, anyway? What's wrong with words. or better, mathematics, which can easily conceive an eternity just by ciphers, which can run in either direction, or any direction simultaneously, for infinity?

Example of a process: prayer

1. Study a concept about anything: read, ponder. formulate questions, if any, think about questions and potential answers.

2. If a question remains unanswered, and further study and pondering does not reveal an answer, determine to pray about it.

3. prayer preparation: a] be sincere and humble. b] be faithful. that is, know in your heart that an answer will be given, and know that the answer should be accepted and followed c] prepare your question. how will it be asked? 

4. Do not doubt yourself, nor that God will hear you.

5. Address God as "God," "Father," etc.

6. Be thankful, and tell Him you are grateful for your life, your gifts, the bounty you have, the food you eat, etc. God is willing to give more to the one who expresses gratitude for what he has.

6. Ask your question, just as if you were addressing anyone facing you. Just ask. Don't need to make it fancy. "I have a problem with..... I've tried to figure it out, but the answer isn't there. Please help me to find the answer and to know it s true.

7. You are part of the solution, don't expect to just hand over the burden to God without a commitment to continue the pursuit of your question; commit to being proactive, and patient.

8. Close your prayer in renewed expression of faith to receive an answer. If you believe in Jesus Christ, close in his name. If you don't, well, he is the Christ whether that's believed, or not. Expressing faith in him is necessary because he is the Savior and Redeemer of all the world, and is our intermediary with the Father. If that is your question - is Jesus the Christ, the Son of God - then ask if he is.

You get the picture. Cannot employ steps out of sequence, or skip steps and expect a desired result. If we do not engage all steps, in a proper order, we cannot expect a desired result, like an answer.

That answer is not likely to be a personal visit. What will occur may be something you've never felt before: a warming or burning sensation in your heart. It begins to swell, as if enlightening until it expands throughout your entire body. It is felt, not merely imagined. It is palpable. It is a feeling of such peace, you might begin tears. It is the most glorious feeling I have ever felt, and it is felt very often as I hone the skill of prayer.

Why do you think Newtonian laws are not processes? How do you define "process?"

It's an eternal process because, although our moon was not always there [and neither was the earth, nor the sun, etc.], there have always been, and always will be moons, and suns, and earths, and stars in the whole bloody universe, and they will all follow processes... until they don't, but new ones will. You cannot think of the universe as a singular creation at one point in time, and then God rested forever. He woke up, and is still creating elsewhere, planting a garden here, and there, and way over there... an eternal process of creation, and resting, and...

<br>

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Bit let him ask in faith, never wavering, for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." - James I: 5, 6.

That's how. Sure, you're going to tell me that prayer doesn't work. No, it doesn't if you don't follow the process. Damn, there's that word again. Everything. EVERYTHING is a process, my friend. parse it as you will, everything from being born to going to the grave, and beyond, is process. Step 1, step 2, step 3. If you don't following the process exactly as defined, how do you ever expect to achieve what was planned?

1. I disagree that "privacy," as implied by Roe v. Wade, using the arguments of the 1A, 3A, 4A, 9A, and 14A, as claimed by Roe, is a valid claim since "privacy" is not ever mentioned as a right in any of the referenced amendments. It is, therefore, using the Constitution as a cafeteria, replacing with "privacy" what each amendment actually says, like assuming a cafeteria choice of roast beef, chicken, or fish when the choices are not offered in the restaurant you're in, and where the choice is lamb, pork, or scallops. That is misinterpretation of the Constitution. The clearest of the amendment list are the 4A and 14A, which stipulate "secure in their persons," which is not the same as "privacy." Nor do I accept that a pregnant woman can extend her body to include the fetus as part of her privacy because, whether or not the law accepts a fetus as a living human life, deserving of its own body rights - and the law is currently contrary on that point - the fact remains that, when the nature of pregnancy concludes its process, the fetus is expelled, to become an obvious separate entity. And, while in the womb, it shares not one drop of blood or DNA with the mother. It is not part of her body, pure and simple. I use this argument: If the fetus is part of her body, why does her tongue remain when she opens her mouth?

2. One must define what they mean by "health care." Is it merely access to health care, or is it expecting a universal outcome of health care? We have access, now. Who is turned away when one comes to emergency? That's access. However, are all [the scope of a universal right, yeah?] guaranteed a desired outcome? No. Just consider organ transplant patients. Are they guaranteed an organ from some warehouse on demand, even if in a terminal condition? Nope. No universal outcome there, is it?

3. We have background checks on gun purchases now. What is our guarantee that having still more checks will curtail crime? We can prevent 1,000 murders? That argument is the same conundrum as expecting we can count all ships that are spared disaster on the rocks where there's a lighthouse warning of dangerous conditions. How do we know? We guess. But, that's it. I know statistics. I'm a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Stats can be manipulated to agree with an agenda, but that's not a proper use of stats. We can legislate until cows are homebound, but that will never 100% prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun with no background check to commit murder with it. We simply cannot expect 100% compliance merely be attempting to legislate behavior. Never have; never will. It's a feel-good argument without concrete results. And simply banning guns will not accomplish what you want, either. Ban guns, they'll murder with spoons. Ban spoons, they'll murder with thumbs. Are you going to ban thumbs? A gun is a tool that can do nothing without it being handled, and you're back to the behavior argument. Such is true of virtually all other tools that could be used to murder. Like a handkerchief. How far do you go to ban the possible tools that can also murder in addition to the tasks they were designed to perform?

I do not see a rational conflict with these three pro-life values. Each value of life is the construct of common sense. All three demand a respect for human life and expect civilization to to act responsibly in their conduct. That human behavior fails to meet our expectations is just a fact of life that must be acknowledged, and we try the best we can to curtail aberrant behavior, but 100% compliance will only happen when we each have reached perfection. The typical argument eventually turns into "Why does God allow suffering? Since He does, He must not exist, because no God would allow it." Nonsense. God allows suffering because He has granted us free agency, knowing that we will abuse it it. We are expected to overcome our base instincts. Life is a challenge for everybody, and it is a series of choices in an unfair circumstance. But even death as a result of poor use of agency is no barrier. So we die. Everybody does, sooner or later for all kinds of reasons. But innocent death is no barrier to prevent the advance of eternal life. 

As said, the negative distinction is that logic cannot prove a negative.

Did you miss that line, or ignore that methane is one of your bugaboo greenhouse gasses?

The uninformed, who are also teachers, are going to teach... what? Their uninformisms to their students? But, they're Teachers! Yeah, admittedly, but that is not automatic license to only tell you truth. There are agendas, here, children. "Question everything with boldness." - Thomas Jefferson.

Someone earlier in this string commented something to the effect that there was either an intelligent creation, or there was evolution, never the twain to meet, worlds without end, amen.

Darwin was an intelligent man. He theorized in his volume, On the Origin of Species, in the last paragraph, in editions 2 through 6, that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." [Bolded italics are in editions 2 - 6, but missing only from edition 1]

Darwin is describing theistic evolution. That is, creation, which is not formation of matter/energy out of nothing, but organization of existing raw materials in chaos [the "without form and void" of Genesis]. Subsequent to creation is the process of evolution engaged, effectively, allowing the creation free agency to do as it will with little interference in allowing the process to proceed. What's so hard about that, or have all you Darwinists defrocked St. Darwin?

Newton's first law of motion is a perfect example of process. His first law of motion is often stated as:

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The fly in Newton's soup is the phrase, "...with the same speed..." because we have observed by more accurate measurement than Newton had available in his day that objects in motion, such as the moon, do not sustain the same speed, even if no other unbalanced force is causing the variation. or perhaps it is the forces at work upon the moon on a constant, but variable basis: the earth, the sun, other planets and moons, the occasional fly-by asteroid, etc. The point, is, the moon, and any such body in motion, does stay in motion, even at variable speed, unless and until acted upon by "an unbalanced force" that would be greater than the forces already at play. 

I call that a process. An eternal process.

What is it about eternity that suggests to you there is no process in it?  According to OED: "Process: A continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring or performed in a definite manner, and having a particular result or outcome; a sustained operation or series of operations." That can occur on a finite, or infinite basis; the definition does not distinguish. You cannot just assert that it does. It says there is a definite manner to the process, not that it's finite in duration. Such a claim must be another word. Your assertion; you find it and tell us.

I split the definition. We currently have access to healthcare; everyone will typically be seen by a doctor in the US even if unable to pay. However, it is the access to outcome that is not a right. Ongoing treatment with a desired outcome is not a right; that condition is a privilege. This is why I use the example of a person who is in a fatal condition but for the availability of an organ transplant. There are no organ warehouses by which such a patient is guaranteed survival. Not to mention that, according to CDC, roughly 60% of cancer patients, and 70% of heart disease and diabetes patients would not have their diseases but for poor choices by the patients to consume a proper diet, exercise, and live prudent lifestyles [not like an MYV jackarse, for example.] All of us have the right to choose to engage these activities, but a percentage of use will acquire these diseases regardless. So, even by choice, healthcare outcome is not fully a right.

Well, thanks for the compliment, but I'm just a student. Have been all my life.

To your question, give me a small delay. I do the cooking for the family, and I don't do hot dogs. Tonight is shrimp scampi on angel hair pasta with a Sherry-based lobster cream sauce. If you can find me, welcome to the table!

The root language of God is mathematics. All actions and commandments of God are balanced formulae of, essentially, you do this, God will do that, and the two actions have equivalent value. There is a body of scripture I embrace which contains the following: "There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world upon which all blessings are predicated, and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." [D&C 130: 20-21] That is, in essence, a balanced equation.

Newton used to refer to God as "The Geometer." 

1. What if nothing has a beginning, including...

2. The universe, which may have always existed, therefore no beginning,

3. Yet, the universe has a cause.

All that means is expanding the available posits to include eternity, or infinity, which cannot be limited to a beginning.

In a biblical sense, when Genesis says, "In the beginning..." the beginning is not speaking to the universe beyond, but the heaven and earth in a specific locale, which, themselves, were not non-existent, but merely "without form," that is, unorganized matter and energy. Creation, then, is not create out of nothing, but organization of matter and energy, for a purpose.

Why must there be a start? Just because we think we have been able to measure a Big Bang does not mean there was not a previous bang before that one. The one we measured was faint. That's the same logic as saying that if we cannot measure a minimum quantity of water vapor in a cloud there must not be an amount below which we cannot measure. Absurd.

Moreover, even if we believe the God caused the Big Bang, was it the only bang He had happen? Also absurd. Why should we think there was only one? Thats accepting a definition of "eternity," yet limiting it to a point with an eternal line running away from it in one direction. Also absurd, again. Eternity is an unlimited line in both directions. If mathematics can imagine such a line, why cannot cosmology, astronomy, or religion, for that matter? More to the point, why not an infinite number of lines extending in all directions; effectively a sphere formed of lines?

Cancelling the season is a prudent decision. Locker rooms are small, damp, hot, sweaty environments conducive to even easier transfer of the virus by incidental contact sweat-to-sweat, then body part to hand, hand to face, and, voila, the virus has successfully transferred.

Same issue playing on the court, with or without fans in the stands. No other major league sport has these potentials for virus transfer at the frequnecy that occurs with basketball.

Actually, I have. Title: Faux Law, available on Amazon Books. It's a discussion of misinterpretation of constitutional language as committed by the Supreme Court, the president, Congress, and we, the people. I use the extended metaphor that we treat the Constitution like a cafeteria: chose this, change that, ignore the other.

On its face, the statement is equitable. However, the proof of a negative is a flawed logic. On that basis, alone, arguing for the existence of God is advantaged.