My links are present in the argument. Other links are concerning "youth bulges": http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/
Good luck with your paper!
While it's true that the magnetic poles and the magnetic field specifically are critical to the safety of the ozone layer, a reversal does not trigger species extinction. It requires another solar storm to weaken the ozone layer as the poles are switching. Even so, scientists say the ozone layer would heal itself in about 2-3 years should there be a particular bad solar storm while the field is at a weak point.
Also, you are just fear mongering in relation to "gamma rays and x-rays will pierce our cells and turn a significant amount cancerous, which equals death." While it is believed noted that there have been rises in the background mutation of species during periods of magnetic reversals, it doesn't mean that people will automatically get cancerous tumors should they step outside. (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/47909). There is expected a small increase but nothing untreatable, nor overtly harmful forever.
Could not both the mother language and the international language be taught in the classroom? Esperanto was designed to be an international language because of its close relationship to many different languages, and couldn't it along with the home country's language be taught concurrently? Therefore, one could communicate outside of the country, while retaining your country's heritage.
And I will NOT say that this is a theory because it is true.
I expected as much. See, as I was willing to admit that what I said was theoretical, you are unwilling to do so. With no direct observable evidence (as I discredit all your "evidence in the following paragraphs), I am forced to reason the existence of God to be statistically lower (much, much lower) than there being no God.
To each point in the site:
In hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of thousands of billions of stars each, of thousands of thousands of billions of planets, one is likeley to be Earth-like.
Water is just the union of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen. It has incredible properties, but under certain conditions it is likely to form.
The human brain isn't incredible. Numerous animals have also been found to have similar emotions, thoughts, and learning patterns. Additionally the human brain isn't perfect, e.g. any mental disease.
The eye is also not incredible. It's not perfect: diseases and maladies crop up constantly. It is merely a sensory mechanism that our brain uses to identify specific objects.
There is an explanation, actually multiple, for what caused the Big Bang. (http://www.ted.com/talks/
Laws exist. Of course there will be descriptions of how they work. Perhaps not why they exist, but being mathematically describable does not necessarily need a creator to exist. Sean Carroll in the previous link says that given an infinite amount of time, a universe like ours must occur.
No one suggests that our DNA code sprang miraculously into existence. We do claim that changes occurred in early life to create early DNA from basic RNA. Over time through random changes DNA lengthened to our own.
That "God wants to be known" could easily be explained away by recognizing that everyone has insecurities. An omniscient being that loves you is an attractive solution to any insecurity.
"Jesus as proof" is not really a proof, merely a preference. The author really only bashed the other religions in this "proof", not really giving any specific reason for God's existence.
That's that. None were sufficient. For you to ask me to look at it from a creationist's point of view was like trying to ask Albert Einstein to think like an infant. Creationism has no basis in logical proof, only in romantic, blind, faithfulness.
"If these facts are there, who's to say that the rest of the bible is not fact?"
Because science has proved the Earth is round, the Earth orbits the Sun, and a flood could not destroy the Earth. It's like claiming, "Well since the Lord of the Rings mentioned humans, it's creation myths must be true. After all, it references correct political systems of monarchies." You can see the falsehood in this, correct?
"You atheists say we evolved from slime..."
Is it logical saying that an omniscient, all-powerful man-in-the-sky that we cannot perceive using any natural medium (besides drugs and a vague feeling) created everything. And that he cared about this one planet so much he sent his own son down to "save" it. Saying that given time, probability will dictate that sometime, elements will combine in some way to randomly form the basic building blocks of life, amino acids and proteins. From then on, random events influenced our evolution up to this point. However, I am willing to admit this is a theory that has currently not been proven. I don't think you would be so willing to admit that your God is just a theory.
"...some scientists found where Jesus was crucified and even a little bit of blood that was not a complete humans blood."
Proof please.
Perhaps the two could be pursued in conjunction. I also believe in moving towards a global currency. And while yes, it increases the effect of inflation, it also decreases the likelihood of a mass financial meltdown. It also increases trade. In fact both a global currency and a global language would increase trade.
Of course it cannot be homogeneous. But that still does not preclude a common base. That all English speakers can understand virtually all other English speakers is a perfect example of what could happen with Esperanto. Certainly there are different phrases and idioms, but the overall meaning is not lost between Britain and America.
Mostly. But it contains syntactical elements of many Asian languages as well.
Well basic training is essentially (excuse my next phrase) brainwashing the soldiers to kill. They chant "kill kill kill" and other phrases to numb the soldier towards the taking of life. It becomes reflexive. Do we really want reflexive killers in society? I'm not against soldiering in concept, but reflexive soldiers, soldiers who act without thinking of consequences, frighten me.
Well when it comes down to it, shouldn't the soldiers be held fairly responsible for their actions? They are rewarded for valor, but rarely are they reprimanded (harshly) for following immoral orders. They are praised for following orders, essentially for being automatons. If they respond immorally to a situation, regardless of orders or no, should they not be reprimanded. After all, they serve as representatives of the country.
That would be interesting, yet we both probably know the results. I grew up with a history nut as a father, so I learned early on. And I challenge myself to learn more about a subject matter that I am unclear on. Don't forget to read up on Vietnam and Korea yourself before you quiz the young'uns.
Vietnam resulted in no progress, true. But Korea resulted in some progress. Vietnam isn't our enemy now (which I would actually call some progress). Meanwhile, although progress has been made in some political and social reform in the Middle East (I'm doubtful of the security of social reform because it seems much harder to reform morality than politics), the area is still incredibly unstable. You don't seem to see history repeating itself with different people, places, and ideologies?
As you said yourself, communism was the 1950s-80s version of terrorism. Containing the spread of communism was, in most Americans' minds, an essential goal to keep the world safe, happy, and prosperous. Additionally, imagine the wars themselves:
In Vietnam, we had the Viet Cong and the Viet Minh. In Iraq we have the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Insurgents. The insurgents seem most to me like the Viet Cong, whereas the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are like the Viet Minh.
At the outset of each war, we had very idealistic, yet murky goals: stopping terrorism (how?) and suppressing communism (how?).
We were fighting a guerrilla war in both, where our superior technology, infrastructure, and apparently military, were incapable of dealing knockout blows against the enemy.
The wars dragged on for years with admittedly some progress, although it was few, and often temporary.
The presidents received nearly full support from Congress (at the onset at least) for each war.
Horrible crimes against humanity occurred (Abu Ghraib and the My Lai Massacre).
We place incredibly corrupt regimes in the place of those we destroyed (Ngo Diem and Syngman Rhee, and Talabani and Karzai)
More parallels?
In some ways I think you are right: the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are difficult to understand because their viewpoints are so drastically different from our own. But the crux of it is it seems like they think they understand us, our culture, and our way of life, but in reality they have as much trouble trying to understand us as us them.
As it is a guerrilla war, and has been since the start, it's abundantly clear that the United States has failed in almost all it's guerrilla wars (except perhaps the Revolution). Vietnam, the most notorious example of guerrilla warfare, was a complete failure. Korea was half a failure.
