text:
His party won less than 1% of the vote in the 2004 presidential election, but Indiana State Chairman Mark Rutherford's blog boasts of "the exciting progress and success of the Libertarian Party of Indiana."
WM asked Rutherford '82 how he defines success against such odds, what sustains him as the state chairman with the longest tenure of any party boss in Indiana, and why he believes his party's role as "the defender of small business" promises bigger things to come.
WM: When did you join the Libertarian Party? What attracted you to it?
Mark Rutherford: I officially joined the Party in 1996, although I've voted for Libertarians since at least 1980. I had given up on the Republican Party after it made little viable effort with its "Contract for America." It was getting harder for me to distinguish the Republicans from the Democrats, except that the Republicans wanted to spend a lot of money on different things and expand government in ways different than the Democrats.
Also, I'm very easygoing and accepting of other people. "Live and let live" and "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" seem like very good concepts. By 1996 I decided that the Republicans seemed to want to legislate morality more and more—to tell me how to live my life. It's none of their business.
Did anything you learned at Wabash shape this decision?
Professor Bill Placher '70 assigned Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia in one of the classes I took. This book introduced me to libertarian philosophy. Also, Ben Rogge's reputation led me to read his "Can Capitalism Survive?" He published it while I was at Wabash. So I was already well-versed in libertarian ideas when I gave up on the Republicans.
While I was at Wabash, a couple of my fraternity brothers volunteered for the 1980 Libertarian presidential campaign. I liked what they had to say about the views of the Libertarian candidate.
What do you see as the main selling points of the Party today?
We are the only‑political party that regularly advocates for and supports‑small-business owners and individuals.‑The small-business owner and individuals, as special interest groups, are being ignored. We're picking up the political slack for these interests.
We're helping small-business owners regarding smoking bans. Our position is that businesses should decide whether they want smoking or not. It's their business. Secondly, as a state party, our position is that smoking bans in public buildings owned by government is a decision for the governing board. Such decisions don't necessarily disrupt fundamental concepts for freedom in the United States. Thus our opposition to smoking bans is focused on private property.
In 2004, our gubernatorial candidate raised pro-small business issues in all three gubernatorial debates. He was the only one raising these issues.
We've also done a lot of work regarding opposition to mandatory seatbelt laws (we prefer resources directed at improving the arrest and conviction rates of burglars, rather than government going after seatbelt scofflaws).
What recent national or world events have been catalysts for increased interest in the Libertarian Party?
The United States Supreme Court Kelo decision has been a major catalyst for increased interest in the Libertarian Party. When the Supreme Court said it was constitutional for government to take one's home and then turn around and sell it to a private developer, a light bulb seemed to go off in people's heads. They realized what we've been saying for a long time—unfettered government affects everyone.‑
Many small business owners already know how government was taking their small businesses in the name of redevelopment. Now homeowners know it can happen easily to them, too.
What do you see as the most pressing issue faced by Indiana today,and what's the Libertarian Party's solution?
Indiana's priorities are wrong. A new football stadium for a private business downtown and putting the onus of its cost on local property owners and the patrons of small businesses (restaurants) is wrong.
The Libertarian solution is quite simple. Scale back government to essential items. Focus on those who use physical force against others instead of "feel good" seat belt laws. Focus on real problems, such as the homelessness of the mentally ill, which in large part was created by government.‑
What's the Libertarian solution for combating the epidemic of methamphetamine use throughout the Midwest?
We need a two-pronged approach. First of all, the investigation and prosecution of burglaries should have the highest priority. People who burglarize to support their drug habit are some of the most despicable people out there.
The second prong is to reduce government regulations and other requirements that have destroyed the middle class business owner in small towns, where the meth epidemic seems greatest. We have a saying among Libertarians: "Wal-Mart is the creation of big government. It had to become big in order to economically deal with the cost of complying with the thousands of government regulations, the zoning battles all too commonly faced by business, and to attract tax abatements (which are rarely given to mom and pop stores).
If it becomes economically feasible to fill the store fronts in small communities again, there will be more jobs, more stable communities, a larger pool of movers and shakers for a community, and fewer reasons for people to succumb to meth because of the desperate economic condition of their community.
What's the most pressing issue faced by the nation?
The most pressing issue facing the nation is the Internal Revenue Service. It has become the primary instrument of choice for our current politicians to implement their social experiments on us. The Fair Tax promoted by Libertarian radio show host Neal Boorst is the best program I've seen out there for reform. It attempts to remove the social engineering and return the tax system to one of a more neutral system of raising revenue to support essential neutrally based government needs.
How do your own spiritual values drive your Libertarian politics? How much do you believe one's religious beliefs should shape his political agenda?
I believe in the Golden Rule, and that one should not use physical force against another except for self-defense, and that one should not engage in fraud. These drive my Libertarian politics.
I also believe government should not legislate morality. The power to take one's beer is the same power to take one's bible. It is the role of churches, clubs, civic organizations, and even businesses to drive morality and to advocate how one should live their life. Government's role should be to protect the right each of us have to live life as we see fit without others using lies or physical force against us.
When all you can reasonably hope for in many races are percentages in the single digits, how do you define success?
Success is defined in many ways. Sometimes it's by changing the issues debated by the candidates. Sometimes it's requiring incumbents to justify their existence. A lot of races in Indiana are two-way, with the Libertarian the only opposition forcing the incumbent to justify themselves to the voters.
Other times it is victory—we have several elected officials in Indiana. Other times it's when our candidates are asked to be on various government and non-governmental boards because they impressed people as candidates, even though they didn't win.
You've got a full-time law practice, as well as the state chairman's post and work on the Party's national committees. You've poured a lot into this. What keeps you coming back?
My wife says I have infinite patience. That is a good trait to have when trying to fight oppressive use of power and a power structure. I focus on the small victories, which are numerous.
Also, when things are going roughly, I think about British member of Parliament William Wilberforce. He presented his first bill to abolish the slave trade in 1791. It was easily defeated by 163 votes to 88. For more than 30 years he fought in Parliament to slowly abolish slavery. Small successes built on small successes. He retired from the House of Commons in 1825. But by then the path was almost certain, and one month after he died in 1833, slavery was abolished in Great Britain.
I'm glad he was patient and kept coming back. I intend to do the same thing—and expect to see more positive results, or at least, trends toward my desired results.
Read the complete interview at WM Online.
Read Mark Rutherford's blog at http://lpinscr.blogspot.com/


text:
The Emblem
31-12-2001 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 844, by Christina Magnuson
Council of Delegates, 11-14 November 2001, Statement by Christina Magnuson, co-chair, Joint Working Group on the Emblem
Two years ago, the Council took an historic decision for the future of our Movement by mandating the Standing Commission to set up a joint working group, composed of representatives of both States and the Movement, responsible for finding a comprehensive and lasting solution to the question of the emblem.
The working group has submitted its report to you and, as the group's co-chair, I should like to thank everyone who has taken an active and creative part in its work.
In terms of both procedure and substance, the working group's proposal is capable of achieving our objective, which is to allow the recognition and admission into our Movement of National Societies that have difficulty in using the existing emblems.
The proposed adoption of a protocol to the Geneva Con-entions providing for an additional emblem devoid of any political, cultural or religious connotations will meet the requirements of those National Societies, while preventing a proliferation of emblems that would detract from their protective value.
Having submitted this overall proposal, the working group has fulfilled its mandate. Indeed, no one could criticize the group for not having foreseen that serious events in the Middle East would prevent completion of the process intended to culminate in a diplomatic conference in Geneva on 25 October 2000.
The postponing of the conference places us in the paradoxical position of having finally found a solution without being able to implement it, in the absence of ratification by the States. Should we conclude that this sends us back to square one? Is this another failure? Not at all. And there are several reasons why not.
First, a majority of the governments with which we have been in close contact while working on the draft additional protocol agree that our objective would have been achieved last year had it not been for the events in the Middle East. The postponing of the diplomatic conference calls into question neither the validity of the draft protocol, whose content has received wide support from the community of States, nor the relevance of the process initiated. If we are to resolve the emblem issue, there is currently no alternative to the proposed Protocol III.
Second, the process has allowed us to get this matter onto the diplomatic agenda of the international community. The depositary State has sent each government a copy of the draft protocld therefore respond to pressing operational imperatives. We would gain an additional instrument, one that we desperately need so that we can act more effectively in such situations.
In this Council I do not need to remind you of our responsibilities of disseminating the distinction between the two aspects of our emblems: the indicative and the protective aspects. But the continuous lack of knowledge and misunderstandings of this most important element of our uniqueness as humanitarian organisations force us to, again and again, explain to our partners and indeed to everybody outside our movement, the difference between the two.
These considerations strengthen my conviction that we must continue on our present path. The horrific events of September 11 and their tragic consequences which we are seeing unfold every day before our eyes — in particular the threat of polarization between nations and peoples — serve to confirm my belief that our Movement and the international community as a whole more than ever need a comprehensive and lasting solution to the emblem issue , that is, the adoption of an additional emblem free of any political, cultural or religious connotation.We must therefore move forward with determination, building on the very substantial progress already achieved. And we must take the two types of action indicated by the Standing Commission in the draft resolution submitted for your approval.
The first is to demonstrate strongly and with one voice, support for the draft additional protocol, to act as its advocates in our contacts with governments and to remind them that this an issue of the greatest significance for the future of our Movement, its credibility and the effectiveness of its work. By adopting this common approach, we will help maintain the momentum of the process and we will prepare States to react immediately to a renewed invitation to a diplomatic conference. While it is true that the situation in the Middle East dictates caution, as resumption of the diplomatic process is still held hostage by the tragic events that started in September 2000, it is also true that in their efforts to find a solution to the emblem question the components of the Movement must not align their positions with those taken by governments in reaction to these very serious developments. The emblem issue must not be allowed to stir up emotion if our emblems are to remain the symbols of humanity, neutrality, solidarity and peace in the midst of conflict.
The second type of action involves our Movement itself. Until the new protocol has been ratified we should, without departing from our Statutes, take concrete measures to establish and develop closer and more brotherly relations with those National Societies which, for reasons related to the emblem, or for other reasons, cannot today become the full members of our Movement we would wish them to be. We must invite them to work with us in the field, we must consult them, share our concerns with them, help them to develop, and support their activities.
In this spirit, we say to our friends the Eritrean, Israeli, Kazakh and Palestinian societies: we know you share our ideals, we have seen the commitment of your volunteers. We are happy to see you among us in this Council of Delegates.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Can China's FX-Reserve Managers Move the Needle?
If Warren Buffett finds it a challenge to find investments good enough to "move the needle" on returns when deploying his own funds, imagine what it's like for China with its $3 trillion in foreign reserves. Beijing looks like it is seeking new ways to manage this stockpile, but that could be easier said than done.
The State Administration of Foreign Exchange announced on its website Monday the creation of a "co-financing" office to explore new, innovative ways to use the country's reserves.


text:
This is The Best Ultrasonic Jewelry Cleaner, rated such by The Hammacher Schlemmer Institute because it restored the original luster of jewelry better than any other model tested.
To test all models, jewelry was coated with a mixture of hair gel, hand lotion, and dirt, then placed in a microwave oven to solidify. Using a scale accurate to .0001 grams, and independent laboratory weighed each item before and after one cycle in each cleaner. The Best Ultrasonic Jewelry Cleaner was found to have removed 99.8% of the baked-on mess, superior to all other models.
The Best Model uses 42,000 Hz of sound waves and water from it's 18-ounce reservoir to reach deep into crevices of earrings, necklaces, bracelets, and watchbands to effectively remove debris from even the most hard-to-reach parts of the jewelry. And that's without adding soap, which can be used if desired. The crystal clear LED screen has a digital timer for ease of use, with a simple-to-follow instruction manual.
Jewelry is an expensive and precious commodity. Keep it looking brand new with The Best Ultrasonic Jewelry Cleaner from Hammacher Schlemmer.
The Best Ultrasonic Jewelry Cleaner


text:
Well, should one dismiss things said by the Buddha that one doesn't agree with? Should one change the teaching to suit one's beliefs? Do you think that you know better than the Buddha?clw_uk wrote:Are you really this credulous? I take it then you believe that spirits live in trees, or that the world is flat with a big mountain in the middle
Maybe we should call it "CLW_Dhamma" rather than Buddha Dhamma.


text:
A good start, but...
We applaud President Obama's vow on Wednesday to send Congress new policy proposals by January to reduce gun violence.
In the wake the mass murder on Dec. 14 of 20 elementary school students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., our apparent acceptance of easy access to military-style guns and large ammunition clips for them has undergone the harshest questioning in decades.
After a first term in which his only legislative action on guns was to allow private citizens to carry them in national parks and on Amtrak trains, the president called on Congress yesterday to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The new ban, being prepared by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would not be retroactive but only limit future sales and manufacturing. Two other measures the president called on Congress to adopt would close the gun show "loophole," which allows people to buy guns from private dealers at such places as gun shows and flea markets without background checks; the third is to limit high-capacity ammunition clips. These are common-sense proposals which have been judged constitutional and would not take out of circulation any of the 270 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. -- about 9 for every 10 Americans.
"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said, according to the Associated Press. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."
Even a majority of NRA members apparently support background checks, according to at least one poll. A poll of 945 gun owners -- half of whom were current or former members of the NRA -- conducted this May by Republican pollster Frank Luntz showed that 74 percent of current and former NRA members and 87 percent of other gun owners supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun, according to Reuters. As some have noted, this time there seems to be momentum for common-sense gun laws, laws that respect the rights of gun owners in rural states such as Vermont. In Congress, for instance, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a pro-gun Democrat and NRA member, has come out for such reasonable legislation, as have other pro-gun senators such as Mark Warner, D-Va., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Some Congressional Republicans have expressed openness also, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, along with U.S. Reps. Jack Kingston, R-Georgia, and Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.
On Wednesday, President Obama announced creation of a task force led by Vice President Joseph Biden. The departments of Justice, Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, along with other groups and legislators will be part of this task force. In addition to gun laws, part of this group's charge is to consider ways to improve mental health and to promote a less violent culture. We certainly support such inquiries, with some cautions. One is that steps to reduce easy access to rapid-firing combat weapons be an immediate priority and not be exchanged for or bogged down by issues such as violent video games or improvements in mental health services.
For one thing, according to The Washington Post's "World Views" blog, a 10-country study has shown there's little or no link between video games and gun murders. Do we in the U.S. too often use violence as a problem-solving tool? Yes, but the issue is much more complicated than just what comes out of Hollywood.
As for improved mental health services, "We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to guns," Mr. Obama said. In his response to the shootings, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also listed expansion and improvement of mental health services in his list of things to be done in reaction to the shootings.
We know Sen. Sanders means it. But improving mental health services means spending money. This means that when conservatives in Congress, particularly members in the House tea party caucus, say the real problem relates to mental health and not access to combat-style guns, it's clearly a diversion. They are not about to vote for increases in spending on mental health services -- and many of them have already made it clear they won't vote for commonsense restrictions on guns.
And here lies the real challenge in moving forward -- the GOP majority in the House of Representatives -- particularly the tea party caucus. Will they block real progress here as they have so far in the effort to safely get the nation around the fiscal cliff? If they successfully block meaningful change in federal law on access to rapid-firing combat-style weapons, the only recourse will be the response of outraged voters at the polls in the 2014 national election.
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.


text:
Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by coolkoala, Feb 28, 2013.
Questions to fellow TT members in Australia: How do I know Im playing in the right division?
ouch, that's a big question, and really depends where you are in this great brown land.
should probably page Gregor B to the thread, he's the man for QLD
I guess th e short answer is, are you winning? if you win/lose about 50 % or at least have tight matches, then you are probably in the right division!
if the numbers swing further than about 75% either way, then you're probably not..
The long answer involves various states using different systems and is a bit of a pain, really.
In Hobart, for example, everything is ITN based, even down to individual ratings being split (ie, a player might be a 3.5 (NTRP 5.5, US observers) in Hobart even though there is technically no such rating)
But that's what I know, I have no idea how it's done in QLD..
Thanks for this info. Its sad because when I joined last year, the organisers didnt even watch me play to decide in which division I should be in. I feel I should be in a higher division and my opponents are telling me the same thing..
mate of mine plays in some league down on the Gold Coast where they just seem to take a guess then move people based on their results after each season.
They just put poor Joe in the lowest Division despite him having one a couple of matches in Open tournaments, it was chaos! They moved him, but it seems like there wasn't any kind of grading done in advance..
Obviously not fair if you're paying annual membership and court hire during fixtures:-(
How about getting a professional coach to rate my skills?? And advise the fixture organisers?
well, yes, you could certainly get an on-court ITN assessment done by any TA coach
(we all had to do a clinic about it, so everyone can do it!)
that would probably help, but I don't know a lot about QLD tennis.
you know what thye say, "we are now landing in Brisbane, set your watch back 30 years"
Lol! Where I live id say wind the clock 50 yrs back. Cheers mate, much appreciated!
Separate names with a comma.


text:
Each year, the National Institute of Building Sciences recognizes individuals and organizations that have provided outstanding service to the Institute, the building community and the nation.
The Institute honored its 2013 award winners at an Annual Reception and Awards Banquet held Wednesday, January 8, during Building Innovation 2014—The National Institute of Building Sciences Annual Conference & Expo.
The 2013 recipients included Wagdy A.Y. Anis, FAIA; Martin Weiland, PE; and Jimmy W. Sealy, FAIA. The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) was among the organizations to win.
The Institute President's Award is given to an individual or organization in recognition of extraordinary efforts to assist in advancing the mission of the Institute. Institute President Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA, presented the 2013 President's Award to The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) in recognition of the organization's support of and work on Institute programs, including the Consultative Council, High Performance Building Council, National Council of Governments on Building Codes and Standards, and the buildingSMART Alliance, as well as work to forge a more resilient America by promoting the need for improved water efficiency and the water/energy nexus in America.
Accepting the award on behalf of IAPMO was Peter DeMarco, senior vice president of advocacy, research and program development. DeMarco has led a number of initiatives, both internal to the Institute and external, which have led to a greater discussion on how energy and water are inexplicably connected.
"Plumbers don't expect a lot of awards," said DeMarco, upon receiving the award. "[Regarding the Consultative Council] it's been an opportunity. Where else can you develop a series of recommendations that carry the weight of consensus that lands on the President of the United States' desk?"


text:
Everyone on the 'Anger Management' Set Is Glad to Be Rid of Lindsay Lohan
Lindsay Lohan has finally jetted off to Brazil to attend her boyfriend Avi Snow's concert with his band, City of Sun. But not before angering yet another crew with her antics, with this month's victims being Charlie Sheen and the cast and crew of 'Anger Management.'
On the first day of shooting (Monday, March 25), La Lohan surprised everyone by showing up early and being generally agreeable during her guest starring appearance.
However, by the time she was done with her stint, everyone — including Sheen himself — was starting to learn what the crew of 'The Canyons' learned the hard way: Maybe working with the troubled starlet is more trouble than it's worth.
As an on-set source told E! News, "She was a colossal pain in the ass. It's a shame, because when she actually gets on camera she is good and has comedic timing. But she comes with so much luggage it's not worth it."
Lohan was only scheduled to be on-set Monday and Tuesday, but ended up having to work a "couple hours" Wednesday too due to the delays she caused.
"From the moment she arrived [Tuesday] she did nothing but hold up the production," the insider said. "She would sit in her trailer and stall and she delayed until she up and left for her boyfriend's concert … She held everyone hostage."
LiLo also allegedly made the cast "so pissed they almost called police to escort her" off the set.
In direct opposition to these claims, a source on Lindsay's team says Charlie Sheen was happy with her work and that anything to the contrary is completely untrue. Because reasons.
Lindsay herself was also happy with her work, at least happy enough to gush about its awesomeness on Twitter.
I just had such a wonderful day on set of #angermanagement with @charliesheen & @lightaaron @savethesociety @jazejazz7 and the entire crew!
— Lindsay Lohan (@lindsaylohan) March 26, 2013


text:
© 2008 MLB Advanced Media, L.P. All rights reserved.
Varitek's tag squeezes Angels in ninth
Ball dislodged from Boston catcher's glove after key play
By T.R. Sullivan / MLB.com
BOSTON -- With Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek tumbling over third base, Angels runner Reggie Willits scrambling to his feet and the ball squirting out loose, a classic postseason moment was born at Fenway Park on Monday night.
The Angels were unable to execute a squeeze bunt in the top of the ninth inning of Game 4 of the American League Division Series, and manager Mike Scioscia was left to argue that his runner should have been safe at third.Umpire Tim Welke disagreed, insisting that Varitek held the ball long enough to tag out Willits even though it popped loose when the catcher hit the ground. This was not a case where the ground can't cause a fumble. "That's the NFL," said Steve Palermo, the Major League supervisor of umpires, after the game. "We don't have that in baseball. He had possession of the ball when he made the tag." So the Angels missed a chance to take the lead and the Red Sox added another piece of history to that outcome with Jed Lowrie's walk-off single in a 3-2 Red Sox victory that clinched their fourth AL Championship Series in six years. "I feel he had to have control of the ball," Scioscia said afterward. "It depends on what they consider control. Tim Welke felt that the tag was made and the out was recorded before he lost the ball. But it's like -- guy slides into the bag, you put the tag on him, and if the infielder drops the ball, there is a gray area there of interpretation of what happened. He felt he had control of the ball." Said Willits: "He dropped the ball, but I don't know when he dropped it. It was close, but I'm sure they got the call right."
It was definitely a pivotal moment of the game. The Angels, after Torii Hunter's two-run single in the eighth, had momentum in a 2-2 game and had a chance to take the lead. If they had done so, then closer Francisco Rodriguez would have pitched the ninth and the Angels would have been three outs away from taking the series back to Anaheim."I thought it was a good situation for us with the guy at third base, with the guy at the plate and the count we had," Scioscia said. "And it didn't work out." Kendry Morales started the ninth-inning rally with a double off Red Sox reliever Justin Masterson. Willits came in to pinch-run and Howie Kendrick bunted him to third. That brought up Erick Aybar, the Angels shortstop who delivered the game-winning hit Sunday night. The Red Sox countered with Manny Delcarmen to replace Masterson. "The first thing we talked about, once I came into the game, [Varitek] was like, 'They might try to squeeze here, so let's be aware,'" Delcarmen said. "'Just stay with me.'" Delcarmen missed inside with two pitches. Scioscia then put on the squeeze. "I thought it was going to be a pitch that Erick could handle," Scioscia said. "The first two pitches were fastballs up and in to see what they would do," Delcarmen said. "I saw him square a little bit on the first one. And then on a 2-0, I was trying to throw a fastball for a strike down and in. It was a good pitch." The pitch was inside. Aybar missed the ball and Willits was caught off third. Varitek went after him while Willits kept feinting and darting back and forth like the classic game of pickle. "I was just trying to stay in the rundown, get close to the base and then get back to the base," Willits said. Varitek held on to the ball as he ran toward Willits. "You're taught to go as hard as you can," Varitek said. "You've got to get the runner committed. He wasn't committed, wasn't committed, and I was running as fast as I can. I felt like I had to make the tag at that point. Made the tag, fell, came to try to hold the ball up. Then fell, and when my elbow hit, it finally popped out." That's when Welke ruled that Willits was still out. Aybar then grounded out to end the inning, and he would be the last Angel to bat in 2008. "[Varitek] looked like a linebacker trying to tackle him," Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia said. "He had some closing speed. I've never seen that out of him. I'm just excited that [Aybar] didn't get the bunt down. That would have been huge momentum for them. It actually shifted our way." Varitek said he wasn't worried that Willits was going to beat him back to third base. "Not with my speed," Varitek said.
T.R. Sullivan is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.


text:
Description: PUL is a polyester/polyurethane laminated knit fabric with a laminate thickness of 1.00 mil. This fabric is waterproof, durable and has a slight crossgrain stretch. This product can be used in making diapers, changing mattress covers and applications that require ...
go to product
Explore Fabric.com
We're here to help
Discover Fabric.com
Sewing Center


text:
I did not know about freedb.org. I've been converting vinyl and putting 01SongTitle1, 02SongTitle2 in the label track marks, and exporting to files based on those names. I did find that I couldn't type "z" in the label text though (??). So no songs with a "z" in them for me
I just did a search on freedb for the last record I converted, and didn't find it. I didn't even find the artist at first, 'cuz I was looking for "Pearl Harbour and the Explosions", and I
The "Search" on freedb.org is really bad, IMO. I usually have to click through some pages until I find the metadata I'm looking for.
And I'm not sure if submitting data generated from vinyl will work, because the whole point of freedb and all this CD-autometadata-thingy is that they take a checksum of the CD and use it to look up the correct track listings (/me thinks...)


text:
Feedback archive → Feedback 2012
Physicist: Evolution more scientific than quantum mechanics?
Published: 23 December 2012 (GMT+10)
Michael Dowling, a physics lecturer from the United Kingdom, comments on the Question evolution campaign:
I was really surprised that a fellow physics lecturer posted your magazine on his door [see first comment on the Question evolution campaign article—Ed.]. I looked at the 15 questions and most of them are not about evolution, but about abiogenesis. Evolution deals with changes in organisms and DNA not origins (such as RNA hypothesis, by Sir Harry Kroto, Nobel Laureate). Another odd thing is why attack evolution when particle physics and astrophysics would be more appropriate. How did the universe begin and why is it hostile to life?Most Christians support evolution (In fact all Catholics have to as it was decreed 'true' by the last Pope). Evolution is the most tested of all scientific theories. It makes testable predictions. Evolution is a fact, its theory can be applied and tested and it always turns out to be correct. I find it baffling that some intelligent people are blind to one of the greatest scientific theories of the past 200 years. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the most accurate theory in science, however evolution is the most tested and examined. There are around a million published (peer reviewed) articles on evolutionary science in many journals. There is not a single (one) peer reviewed paper on intelligent design (ID) why is that? What you need to do is get a couple of thousand peer reviewed articles published in major scientific journals testing ID. Once you have that behind you then it would be legitimate to question evolution. But there isn't even one paper yet. So fund the biological sciences to carry out research into ID. That is where your focus should be. Not bashing main stream excepted science. Get yours to the same level of credulity first. Then you will have science on your side. QED.(quod erat demonstrandum, in this case)Regards
We asked if Michael would like his full name displayed and he agreed to this and added:
Just to add one extra point I omitted from my original post. Imagine that 20 years ahead (2032), evolutionary biologists discover that the theory of evolution is unjustified. So biologists are now scratching their heads trying to figure out what causes changes in development of organisms and why 99% of all life is now extinct? That does not mean that creationism is true. Much in the way that if quantum mechanics was disproved it would not mean that Unicorns exist by default. For creationism to be true there has to be testable, supporting evidence. This is what creationists are failing to do. They are not carrying out investigations to test their hypotheses. Only when that is started can they claim any underpinning of their hypothesis. Bashing another scientific theory does nothing for their claim.
Dr Don Batten responds:
There are so many fallacies here!
1. Creation magazine is not the 15 Questions (the physics lecturer in South Africa was displaying articles from Creation magazine, and the 15 Questions).
2. The General Theory of Evolution deals also with abiogenesis. You would have known this if you had actually read the full 15 Questions and especially the three-part article where attempts at answers are presented. It seems like you missed reading this also:
"Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows."
3. RNA hypothesis? It is 'dead in the water'.
4. Universe "hostile to life"? That must be news to those atheistic cosmologists who invented such a bizarre thing as 'multiverse theory' to overcome the anthropic principle; the observation that our universe is incredibly, improbably suited to life (if it was not actually designed for life). See Divining design.
5. "Most Christians support evolution"? Not according to surveys (e.g.) in the USA. In countries where it is not easy to be a Christian, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any who believe in evolution. And you misunderstand the nature of the Pope's statement, which is not regarded by Roman Catholics as binding on what they think. Indeed, there is a significant creationist movement in the RC church (we know of groups in the USA, Europe and Australia). Indeed, Professor Maciej Giertych, from Poland, is a well known Catholic creationist. It is also likely that the Pope's statement has been mistranslated.
6. "Evolution the most tested of all scientific theories"? You have not read the 15 Questions, have you? Look at Question 15 and 14. Evolution isn't even a proper scientific theory, in essence. What experiment can be done on the claim that reptiles changed into birds 150 million years ago?
7. "It makes testable predictions … always turn out to be correct"? Actually many major 'predictions' have been wrong: the fossil record, 150 useless vestigial organs, junk DNA, impossible for a wheel to arise by evolutionary processes (Haldane), introns (segments of DNA within protein-coding genes that are edited out before protein formation) forming an advanced multi-tasking operating system considered evolutionarily 'impossible', mutations plus natural selection explain the origin of all new DNA specifications, the mutation rate in 'higher' organisms was grossly underestimated (by 2 orders of magnitude), etc. Evolution has seriously harmed science. See How evolution harms science. The failure of evolutionary theory has been so consistent that it should have been abandoned, but the only alternative is unthinkable to the secular (God-less) mind. It's as Professor D.M.S. Watson admitted years ago:
"evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible" (Nature 124:233, 1929).
8. "A million published peer reviewed articles on evolutionary science"? The comprehensive database of papers on biology, PubMed, currently indexes 5,645 sources, mainly journals. From these, only 332,000 papers even mention "evolution". Adding "natural selection" only increases the number by 0.3%. However, not all the publications on PubMed are peer-reviewed papers and many of the papers have nothing to do with the concept of biological evolution because 'evolution' is often used merely in the sense of 'change'. For example, four of the first 10 papers I retrieved had nothing to do with biological evolution. Many also actually provide powerful evidence for intelligent design (creation) and then (to prove the author is not a dreaded creationist?) there is a trite 'dipping of the lid' to evolution in the concluding comments (I personally know a recent doctoral candidate whose supervisor wanted just such an irrelevant statement added to a paper on molecular biology that had nothing to do with evolution). I think it would be generous to concede a figure of 20% of the one million claimed. As an interesting aside, evolution's pushers often claim that it is the backbone of biology, and how necessary it is for medical research (etc.), but the total 'evolution' papers comprise only 1.5% of the total indexed on PubMed.
9. "Not a single one peer reviewed on intelligent design … isn't even one paper yet."? Wrong again. And of course the Journal of Creation is a peer-reviewed journal. However, you have to do better than hide behind 'peer review'; you need to demonstrate where our arguments are wrong. Peer review can be nothing more than a way of excluding unpopular ideas from 'the club'. Even 'mainstream' scientists are recognizing the deficiencies of the system in keeping out good ideas and not filtering out bad ones (try copying this into a Google search: "failure of peer review" site:dml.cmnh.org). 'Is it true?' is the issue, not 'is it peer reviewed?'
10. We are "bashing mainstream accepted science" in critiquing evolution? No we are not; as the 15 Questions points out (did you actually read it?), evolution is a hypothesis about history, which is not something that science can address with anything resembling the scientific method; it is most definitely not "mainstream science". A former President of Harvard University called this historical daydreaming that masquerades as 'science' a fantasia. Did you read 'It's not science!' (linked from Question 15)? Again, it seems not. Evolution is entirely different to quantum mechanics, which is open to experimental testing in the present, which is what mainstream science is all about. That there is no Nobel Prize for evolution or any related field makes sense because it is not hard science, contrary to your assertions.
11. "Imagine that 20 years ahead (2032), evolutionary biologists discover that the theory of evolution is unjustified" (your added comment). There is already a plethora of contrary evidence but still evolution reigns, as dogma, taught to the exclusion of all else, even criticism. There are even atheists' clubs to 'protect' evolution from criticism (including a British one, the BCSE). While a materialistic worldview prevails in academia, some form of evolution (materialistic origins scenario) will remain entrenched; it is a matter of the 'priority of the paradigm'—as Professor Lewontin said, they "cannot allow a divine foot in the door". See Would Darwin be a Darwinist today?
You say that if evolution were disproven (and it has been), "That does not mean that creationism is true. Much in the way that if quantum mechanics was disproved it would not mean that Unicorns exist by default." This is such an incredible non sequitur. Divine creation and materialistic evolution are logical alternatives to explain the origin and diversity of life. However, Unicorns have zero relevance to explaining the structure of matter.
It was not creationists who invented the idea that creation was an alternative to evolution, but evolutionists. Darwin led the way. Even today, evolutionists present arguments against creation, such as claimed 'bad design', as arguments for evolution. Their reasoning is correct: the law of the excluded middle applies here: either living things made themselves by a materialistic process (evolution) or they were created (a third option that living things always existed is not possible)."For creationism to be true there has to be testable …" Hmm … This reminds me of the Skeptics who on the one hand claim that creation is not science because it is 'not testable' but then go on to 'prove' it wrong!
Virtually every paper published on molecular biology today reinforces the truth of supernatural creation. What is being discovered is so far removed from the capability of natural processes to create that it screams 'creation' by a super-intelligent Creator. For example, sophisticated rotary and linear nano-motors don't arise by mutations. Even the former 'world's most notorious atheist', Antony Flew, eventually saw the power of this evidence. Creationists are also publishing papers to establish what we claim, but it is clear (above) that you have not looked for them (check out some of Dr Royal Truman's papers in Journal of Creation, for example).
As for "99% of all life is now extinct", this is fallacious, based on evolutionary assumptions about how many transitional 'species' must have lived in the past. See Fossil figures fall.
I hope this clarifies some things for you. As a physicist it seems that you have a misplaced respect for evolutionary biology, which is not at all 'hard science' like physics. Perhaps your enthusiasm for biological evolution does not come from its value as science but its perceived usefulness as a religion to replace Christianity? (see Question 15).
Don Batten (Biologist).
Related Articles
Further Reading
The comment about the hostility of the universe to life caught my attention. As you rightly point out, there are so many aspects of the laws of physics that, if only slightly different, would result in a universe where life was absolutely impossible, thus the attempts to explain this "anthropic principle."
However, as far as we have actually observed and thus truly know, life only exists on Earth, and here it does so abundantly (and evidently much more abundantly in the past). Again, even given the right physics for life, there are a number of factors which must be in a very narrow range of possible conditions for life as we know it to exist. Thus, the ongoing search for life elsewhere, and much speculative work about possible(?) other kinds of life.
So we see no other life in the solar system, vast reaches of empty space, many other solar systems examined and found wanting... even if "somewhere out there," there are planets with life or capable of sustaining it, by far most of the universe is totally lifeless. I think it supports our view that life is here, even on Earth, only because God created it, and also it indicates that He is so Great that He created all the rest just for beauty, our curiosity, "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," and reasons we may never know this side of eternity. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." (Ps. 19:1)
Hey Randy, you say there is no evidence against evolution? I'm sure you have heard of the Law of Biogenesis, right? Yeah, the problem is that if evolution were true, then it would have to be broken at least one time. Thus, there is evidence against evolution.
Also, it doesn't matter if the majority of scientist believe in evolution because evolution is not science, it is a hypothesis about history. That would be no different from me saying that World War 1 never happened because a majority of scientists said so.
Also, the majority of scientists has been wrong before, as they were with spontaneous generation and phlogiston. Here is another example. My earth science teacher in college (no friend of creation) admitted that between 1997 and 2007, the average world temperature had actually gone down, contradicting the Global Warming idea. Have the majority of scientists suddenly stopped believing in GW because of this find? Heck no! Therefore, majorities are hardly a reliable measure of truth.
Question to Randy H.
"No one has shown any evidence that evolution is false."
- that's because evolutionists rarely, if ever, will specify or identify the precise evidence they would accept as an adequate falsification of evolutionism as either a theory, model, philosophy or world view. This really is a poor way of doing science or logic. Darwin actually did refer to the fossil record. He predicted that in years following his advancement of the theory, we would find a plethora of transitional fossil forms that would prove his ideas correct. He added that if this did not happen, he would thereby be proven wrong. So where are they? They should be there in the millions. All we have are a few very questionable extant and extinct simians and archeopteryx (also questionable).
Methinks the evolutionary kings are going about undressed.
Reply to Randy H
I lived in a country where evolucionists have done their job well (for a while). They have united (under a comunist party banner) took over the political power in the country and freely preached all the proofs of evolution including human/social evolution. So we evolved from capitalism to socialism (transitional form to communism) but never made it to communism itself. Rather we devolved back to some sort of capitalism. Freedom of expression is granted to everybody who agrees with our view. Such is the think with Creation / Evolution debate in your country. Is it not true that there are some new laws in Britain preventing teaching even mentioning Creation in schools (including religious schools). When you (and many others) realize that your worldview is not a science but only a worldview there will be a possibility for every individual to be informed on competing ideas and freedom to chose any of them based on merits not on availability or lack of. (born and grown in Socialist Yugoslavia and migrated to Australia while the country still existed)
Reply to Jack C
It amazes me that you think that the "scientific believers" should unite. Congradualations, you would have a single digit percentage of the scientific community. Including about 1% of "biologists" (I use this term loosely, as I don't understand how you could be a creationist and a biologist).
No one has shown any evidence that evolution is false. Evolutionists have proven their burden that evolution is true. Disprove the supporting evidence. Do something. When you get it right, collect your noble prize.
See you when that happens, never.
As a biologist, I don't understand how you could know anything much about biology and not be a creationist! Oh, I do know : it is because creation points to a Creator, and that 'we' cannot allow! As Professor Richard Lewontin said, "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door".
For this reason also, a refutation of evolution would not be welcome. It has already been refuted in the number of predictions that have been falsified, such as the fossil record showing abundant transitional forms, but it will live on because it is the only game in town for those who don't want to bow their knee before their Creator.
I suspect the number of creationist biologists is more like 5%, with many more who are not so sure about the adequacy of the evolutionary story. See for example: A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry. And this alone also shows how baseless is your assertion that there is no evidence against evolution. I suggest you do some reading on creation.com (there are over 8,000 articles) to get enlightened as to the gaping holes in evolution. They are there to find with ease, if you are open to finding them! But maybe your attitude is similar to Scott Todd (search creation.com).
I often read assertions by evolutionists that evolutionary theory has made predictions which have been proven to be true. I am an avid reader of evolution literature, both pro and con, but have yet to encounter one of these predictions. Are you aware of any, even one which really isn't evidence for evolution theory (even ignoring abiogenesis)? I will venture to make my own prediction. We just had the celebration of 150 years of Darwinism. My prediction: there will not be a Bicentenary Celebration of Darwinism.
cont. While there are many known examples of DNA damage from radiation and drug misuse, the statistical facts show DNA is *totally* protected to the point of ever a Lazard from a frog or vicaversa. There is NO possibility the seemingly endless forms of life ever came to be. Evolution of the kind required to cover the Earth with life never happened. Sorry but the DNA protection and the math deny evolution louder than any fly experiment. God Bless.
I agree that: "Evolution of the kind required to cover the Earth with life never happened". However, to say that the DNA is "totally protected" and at the same time admit that DNA damage occurs seems to me to be a rather confusing way of putting it. The mutational changes that do occur can help explain some of the variation within a created kind but the type of changes needed to change a worm into a human are just not possible. On that we agree.
The reason that a worm cannot change into a human is not so much that the DNA is protected but that the basic body plan is so fundamental to an organism that it cannot be tampered with without destroying the organism. If the DNA that codes for this basic body plan is damaged, the result is death, not evolution of a new body plan. Here is a somewhat technical paper on this subject: Molecular limits to natural variation.
It was Einstein who said - "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Wouldn't if nice if even a few defenders and promoters of evolutionist perspectives were just a bit less self-possessed.
We are all 'self-possessed' to a greater or lesser degree as that is a characteristic of sin.
Well done, I love the responses from you guys always breaking down the strongholds in nice bite chunks. Keep up the good work and I'll keep praying for you and thanking God for bringing your ministry under my attention. I also read that you could use translators; maybe you need one to translate into Dutch? I would be blessed if I could help, I already have over 50 DVD's from your ministry so where can I start and what is the best way to do it?
Thanks for your encouragement and prayers, Fred, and your offer to help with translations. I have passed your name on to our translations coordinator and he will get in contact with you soon.
Stunning re-buttal by Don Batten (Biologist).
Evolution doesn't make common sense IF you bother to THINK about it. For starters, from what can be scientifically observed & 'tested' are the billions of required but MISSING transitional forms. Ooops! 'Required' fossil evidence of transitional forms is what Darwin himself wrote would eventually (or not) validate his theory of evolution. In the absence of his requirements, Darwin admits (as a pre-condition) that his theory is now invalid.
Great debate! I too believed, without thinking, until I was shown the physical evidence that supports creation. Keep attacking the baseless arguments for evolution. DNA is so carefully guarded that nothing short of a cosmic attack can alter it and when altered that way, even in the tiniest sense, disaster ensues. Please do the research and publish the article that explains the locks God has placed on DNA, both in the male and females He created to *totally* preserve and protect it. These are the locks that deny evolution. Again, thank you for putting the truth in front of the eyes that will read it.
There are wonderfully sophisticated error checking systems that mean that changes to the DNA are resisted. However, these systems are no longer perfect (post-Genesis 3) and some errors (mutations) slip through. Some are disastrous but because of the wonderfully robust design of the DNA, unlike a typical computer program many errors are tolerated. Most mutations are like rust spots on your car; not enough to stop it, but with enough spots it will eventually be a rust-bucket! Humankind is heading in that direction, along with all other complex multi-cellular organisms. This is the 'genetic entropy' that geneticist Dr John Sanford has researched and written about (search his name on creation.com). It means that things are heading in the wrong direction for evolution to be a viable hypothesis.
Hebrews 1:10-12 "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
Materialism is a religion and it is also a financial enterprise. There is a lot of money to be made in being a proponent of the indefensible because the State can only fund what is 'scientific' to the exclusion of the non-material. Evolution is where money and anti-religion converge. But what I have just said is merely an explanation of why atheists and materialists behave the way they do.
Nonetheless, as you have very ably pointed out, Evolution is not scientific because no amount of experimentation will prove a process that is linear and progressive. The essence of scientific experiementation is that the process is repeatable with exactly the same result. Ergo, Evolution cannot be scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Evolutionary science is an oxy-moron. Otherwise, there should be at least one scientist who has, in his laboratory, turned a reptile into a bird. Oh, but I forget, it will take millions of years to do that. Sorry, that was too much of me to expect of the evolutionist.
From pure materialistic reasoning, I am surprised that the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not come into play in the physicists reasoning that, instead of evolution (improvement), entropy (chaos) increases. Material decay is a fact of life, not evolution, were it not for the sustaining power of a Providential God!
Materialists often forget that they do not have ultimate explanations. Their explanations are only superficial. Who could explain universal gravitation? Yes, we observe it. Yes, we have equations to explain how it behaves. Yes, we have laws of planetary motion to somehow reduce the complexity of the universe. But I have not seen anyone write a book on why gravitation is.
If I might paraphrase Einstein, understanding the mind of God is paramount, all else are details.
There will be always some "cloud" of human interpretation on scientific data and ideas. This is within the "game rules" of science. This is what drives scientists to make new experimental tests.
But the fact is how many people, scientists included, confuse science and what is not science, what hides under the name of "science". Evolution being a paradigm based on a naturalist worldview sneaked in in the scientific world and built such strong fortresses in human minds that even a small doubt about it brings such an aggressive response. It became dogma.
It is a great job done by CMI to demonstrate what the nature of science is, break those fortresses of pseudo-science and to re-establish the true status of science.
It is not forbidden to be an atheist, but then why not to admit openly which part is science which is a world view (though dominating in our days). Creationists are not afraid of doing that.
Congratulations on an excellent reply Dr Don and for the many excellent comments. i agree totally with the view that evolutionists first need to "define the word evolution" before even opening their mouths and worst of all putting pen to paper.Please allow me to quote "The moving finger writes and having writ moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it". Is it an adaptation to certain, specific environments or conditions or is it the development of what we see around us
(creation) as that which has developed from protozoa or some nebulous conglomeration of proteins, eventually developing into animals and plants. Evolutionism must please define "life" and explain how that evolved. Also explain how the clotting / congealing of blood evolved. our Physicist also needs to read chapters 39 and 40 in the book of Job and be challenged with the questions that God challenged Job with . Please also consider that the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance --- it is the illusion of knowledge.
Years ago, Ken Ham, from Australia taught me a most important rudimentary point. The word 'evolution' is actually a misnomer ... the proper word is "evolutionism". Both creationism and evolutionism are belief systems about the past. And when you look at the real evidence from the past and present, the creationist view can only be the sensible, correct one. Real science does very little to support the evolutionist's view. And my conclusion is therefore quite simple. Anyone who wants to argue with the Christian God is going to lose. Forever. And that is for a very long time.
I am very pleased to have recently become aware of this ministry. God bless you and your efforts. Sincerely, your brother in Christ, Herb
I think the whole response by Don was excellent but I want to look at just one point which is where I think we creationists often get confused and also generate confusion. That is the use of the word "evolution" itself. As Don says, it is often used simply to mean change. I think this is what it mostly means in the evolutionists mind - he/she is not thinking about it in the same way we do. Experiments are possible and repeatable as he says, but only at a certain level.
It means that fighting about it can be meaningless, and have characteristics of bad relationships rather than logic.
Somehow, we need to get better at seeing where these people are coming from and deal with them where they are rather than where we are.
Our creationist world view is threatened by atheistic ideas, and this can cause us to react in a defensive way, and vice - versa with the naturalistic world view.
In order to unlock the minds of these dedicated people, and make it easier for them to look at God and the work of Jesus on the cross, we must avoid treating them as an enemy.
When I became a Christian, aged 17, I was amazed that I could get to 17 years old, had been in school for 11 years with assembly at least once a week, religious education every week, I attended weddings, and Christmas church services, but I never once heard the gospel!
Many people have some knowledge of religious views, and even some theology, but they have never heard the gospel. They don't know what sin really is.
Don is forceful and gracious here, and I think we all need to learn to be the same, for the sake of the gospel and these well meaning souls who may yet come to know the Lord of Glory.
I am Brazilian, have proud to be a creationist! God continue to bless this ministry. I hope one day I'm helping creationism.
Thanks for standing with us. We do have articles in Portuguese that you might find useful: Articles in Portuguese. And we are always looking for competent and motivated translators.
it is false to say that the Pope said Catholics must accept evolution. There is even controversy about what he actually said.
As a catholic I have studied the Evolution verses Creation debate for over 35 years and I still find it incomprehensible that anyone could seriously believe in evolution as the concept has plenty of spin (tall tales) but is without substance.
As far as the claim that all Catholics accept evolution is totally off the mark as traditional Catholic doctrines clearly articulate that God called all of reality into existence by his Word as described in Scripture. It is true Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution and the unfortunate situation where many Catholic institutions are influenced by liberal theologians who support Theistic Evolution (God use evolution) but there are also many Catholics who support the Traditional teachings of the Church which is based on biblical revelations.
In my own small community the number of active practicing Catholics who have taken the time to study both sides of the argument, many end up accepting the Creation concept and rejecting the evolutionary story purely based on logical and scientific arguments.
"What you need to do is get a couple of thousand peer reviewed articles published in major scientific journals testing ID."
Here, I feel, is one of the biggest justification points by many Atheists. If science was an even playing ground then the falsehoods would be exposed and the general public could decide for themselves.
Dr. Dowling's knowledge of Evolution is as good as his knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church - ill-informed. Hopefully he will have the sense to educate himself now.
I appreciate that Mr. Dowling is willing to debate you over issues that are important to him, whether we agree with him or not. Thank you again Mr. Batten for clear information that you share with all of us. Mr. Dowling, I hope you will be blessed with the true answers you are looking for.
A scientist wrote this? Even before I read your answer the only way I could describe his "arguments" is rambling. The man is so way off on all of his claims that you start thinking it could be a joke letter. But he is dead serious, isn't he? Stick to physics, Mr. Dowling.
I do note that Michael Dowling is a UK Physics lecturer.
When Research is your main job in any report which comes into your field you make a beeline for the data reported and try to make that data as 'raw' as possible. The actual experimental results will be the things that have cost most time, and therefore money, to produce. The layers of interpretation need to be peeled off and the selection criteria for the data presented need to be evaluated. In the small field of Research in which you can be really expert you will have personal knowledge of the other significant contributors who are your real peers. You will probably have suffered somewhat at their hands in peer review and be aware of their idiosyncracies as they will be of yours. They may well have suffered at your hands also. When James Watson wrote his account of the discovery of the Double Helix his relatively (for the time) candid account unsettled some of his peers because it did not match the self image they wished to publicly portray.
Research is an intensely human enterprise.
The picture of scientific research which Michael Dowling presents is a good candidate for the textbook portrayal of 'science' which was prevalent in the 1950's and early 1960's which I remember well.
It was dealt academic blows by Karl Popper, then Thomas Kuhn, and emotionally by people like James Watson. Broad and Wade (Betrayers of the Truth authors, 1985) showed on a popular level the prevalence of fraud in the history of science.
People like Richard Dawkins and Michael Dowling may continue to operate with this 'romantic' picture of science which C.S. Lewis saw, even then, as scientism.
Thanks for another great article Dr. Batten.
It's baffling how so many otherwise intelligent and rational scientists can be so blind to the fallacies of evolutionary dogma. Michael states: "It [evolution] makes testable predictions … always turn out to be correct". I suppose that isn't hard to do when all you have to do is make up just-so stories about what could-have, would-have, might-have or maybe happened a hundred million years ago to support the results of every test!
When debating with evolutionary believing atheists, they always use the same old arguments, "its proven", "everybody believes it". Then when you start using facts against their dogamtic approach, they default to their next line of defence which is to try and ridicule your beliefs. Terms like "sky fairies", "unicorns", "religion responsible for all war and suffering", and then out of desparation they pull their old trump card "what about Ghandi".
Once you correct all these false beliefs, they wipe the debate from memory, and stick their heads in the sand. Most remind me of the Borg in Startrek, they have been assimilated. Yet they accuse creationists of being everything they are, narrow minded.
Dr Don, what a wonderful reponse. I can see Michael reading your response whilst raging inside. We need to use the truth of the word of God like a hammer, to break down these strongholds.
From the 'Law of the excluded middle' (it is worth looking up the link in the article for the discussion on logic and argument) it is stated: "(a third option that living things always existed is not possible)". Unfortunately preparation for that possibility is being prepared in the media, films and certainly in the UK science education (indoctrination) system. This is the infatuation of life on other planets and Aliens. You have seen it in films (Prometheus for example), just some alien living material spilt on a visit and with the miracle of evolutionary process, wonderful living things magically appear such as us 'a la Harry Potter' without wand. Where this tail chasing orgin of life saga ends is anyone's guess but there are many 'Earth' like planets out there, we have seen the 'reconstructed pictures' and many galaxies to explore with multiple parallel universes to find. People today are not taught to think logically or reasonably, they are programmed to react unthinkingly to the implanted soundbites of the new 'learned' intolerant priesthood sitting on high. The comedy is that in the philosophy of the 'new wisdom' of this age we must embrace diversity and tolerance. Diversity is accepting other people's views and lifestyles as equally valid, unless that is, you disagree with the enforced 'consensus' of so many topics today including origins. Then you find the true nature of this 'diversity and tolerance' in their opposites!
The last couple of articles are symptomatic of what's occurring here in the UK and show you just what you're up against.
Firstly we need to ask what they mean by evolution: eg, change, chemical evolution or molecules to man evolution?
Secondly, apparently consensus determines truth such that if most people support something then it must be true.
Thirdly, a little bit of effort, such as listening to some podcasts by the Discovery Institute (DI) would discredit most of the false allegations about intelligent design (ID). For example according to the DI, there are now over fifty ID papers in mainstream peer reviewed journals. ID is a theory which makes predictions such as the reduction in the list of vestigial organs and pseudo-genes as scientific discoveries are finding that they have a purpose and are not redundant.
Lastly, Darwinism is a religious dogma, because you can't even criticise the theory due to the unswerving commitment its adherents have to materialism. ID is a valid theory, but it has consequences for ideological commitments and is thus unpopular.
The ID people are doing good stuff, but we think that they are on the wrong track in trying to say that ideology is not involved in ID. All origins science involves ideology; as you have said here re Darwinism. As soon as you mention 'intelligent', you immediately have the question 'Who are we talking about?' because intelligence presupposes a person with intelligence as its source. But there is much more; there is a need for a coherent history of the world into which everything is fitted; the ID movement lacks this and so biological design 'floats' disconnected from a coherent worldview. See: CMI's views on the ID movement.
With regards to point number 9, Michael's conviction that secular peer review always shows naturalistic explanations to be the best explanation is indeed a rather strange claim. For many decades in the origins arena of secular peer review, naturalistic explanations are the only explanations allowed through the filter, but on very rare occasions, a pro I.D. paper might sneak through the filter but it is usually followed by a public backlash and employment prospects threatened, see Richard Sternberg's sacking after publishing a paper by I.D proponent Dr Stephen C. Meyer.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewonton taught: "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation & a set of concepts that produce material explanations... moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Wouldn't this pro evolution philosophy produce a plethora of biased data? They only accept naturalistic explanations then claim naturalistic explanations always fit best. Is this an example of circular reasoning and if so, I wonder why aren't they aware of it? Does Michael agree with Lewonton's philosophy?
"For creationism to be true there has to be testable …"
for this statement to be true it therefore has to be
man i'm trying but cannot seem to achieve a testable method based on sense perception....
silly to deny metaphysical underpinnings required to do science
God made it plain...
Wow I hope you post his response to this if he even tries to respond. Great feedback!
Oh, I love it when evolutionists fall into the pit they dug.
What a life, always on the toes to hang on to a lie just to avoid a creator.
And one day their 'sorry' will not be heard.
Whew! Do I smell smoke? All arguments shot down in flames!!!
The desperation of some scientists to defend the indefensible is unbelievable.
Thank God that we have scientists of intellect who believe in a Creator.
Thank you for a great website. It strengthens my faith. I have a very skeptical and speculative mind so this is like the best. This is one of the places where the shepherd leads me to have a moment's rest... one of my green valleys in a sense.
So God bless. And thank you so much. And thank Jesus.
Thanks for your encouragement, Kristoffer!
It looks like the battle is heating up between the evolutionists and the creationists, mostly out of shear desperation by the former. Isn't it about time all scientists who are not evolutionists banded together and publicly announced how unscientific the evolutionists really are? The evolutionists are spreading propaganda, which I suspect is working, like any well organised propaganda machine. We need the public to be informed by way of an official response from a large group of scientists to denounce such propaganda as not only unscientific but also a hindrance to the search for the truth, which should be the most revered goal for any honest scientist.


text: Every day we are bombarded with a constant stream of information from a wide variety of sources, such as television, the Internet, newspapers, and magazines. Much of the information we receive comes in the form of statistics, often based on informal polls or surveys. Very often, we are confronted with contradictory claims based on statistical information. And, although many people are skeptical of statistics, it is not always easy to know when statistics are being misused and when the information presented is accurate. This course introduces statistical techniques including both descriptive and inferential statistics. Our goal is to develop our statistical skills so that we can be savvy consumers of statistics and learn to assess and interpret statistical results. Statistics are used to try to convince us what to buy, who to vote for, and even what to believe. In this class we will focus on breaking down the numbers and figuring out what they actually say about the social world. With this goal in mind, we will focus on learning how to do calculations by hand, using a software program for statistical analysis, and looking at examples of statistics as they are presented to us. At the end of this course, you will possess the skills to not only identify misuse of statistics, but to conduct your own research using statistical techniques.


text:
Leisure Vouchers Voucher codes
Leisure Vouchers Voucher Codes and Discounts, Get active and free leisurevouchers.co.uk Vouchers, offers, coupons and promotional deals 2014. Welcome to VoucherCat.co.uk, here you can find thousands of codes from hundreds of UK stores, services and retailers. Codes verified and validated on Sunday. 21 January. 2018 ... leisurevouchers.co.uk >>
Valid Leisure Vouchers vouchers and discount codes
Sign up for Leisure Vouchers voucher code email updates
Expired or Unpopular Leisure Vouchers Voucher Codes
People also used these discount codes
Expression #1 of SELECT list is not in GROUP BY clause and contains nonaggregated column 'voucherc8_data.Coupons.website' which is not functionally dependent on columns in GROUP BY clause; this is incompatible with sql_mode=only_full_group_by


text:
Managing Editor
The Russellville City Council approved an ordinance that prohibits the slaughtering and dressing of livestock within the city limits at its monthly meeting Thursday night.
The ordinance amends the city's animal control code to make it a misdemeanor offense to slaughter or dress rabbits, chickens, ducks, sheep, goats, hogs and cattle within the city limits unless a permit is obtained from the city.
Mike Vernon, director of animal control, told the council at the meeting the prohibition does not apply to wildlife such as deer. It also excludes "agri zones, Arkansas Tech University and the [Pope County] Fairgrounds," he said.
Vernon said animal control has received several complaints about people slaughtering livestock in residential areas over the years.
The ordinance also prohibits the dumping of animal carcasses or remnants on "any public property, structure or building by discarding on any public or private drive, street, road, parks or park areas, walking paths or public athletic fields" within city limits.
"We've already been up to the park at Glenwood and Skyline two times this year for deer carcasses," he said.
Alderman Scott Sanders asked how businesses or individuals would obtain permits. Vernon replied it would be up to the council to decide how to proceed.
"Would the permitting process need to be addressed in this ordinance?" Sanders asked. The council passed the ordinance without further discussion regarding the permitting process.
In other business, the council voted to create a city planner position as a city employee. The city's previous planner was paid on a contract basis. David Harris was hired in September to serve as city planner.
An appropriation of $20,100 was made to pay Kurt Jones, an engineer the city has contracted with to provide engineering services. According to the proposal adopted at September's meeting, Jones will charge the city $4,200 a month based on working 60 hours of month for the city. Any time over 60 hours would be charged at a rate of $95 per hour.
The council also approved moving $5,371.84 from police department budget line items for cameras and surveillance equipment into a line item that would fund the purchase of several tasers for the police department. Police Chief Tom McMillen told the council he hopes to purchase seven or eight tasers for patrol officers.
"The eventual goal is to get one for every officer on the street," he said. He told the council two officers have already received certification to train other officers on using tasers.
Also approved was the appropriation of $80,000 to the airport to fund a taxiway extension. Alderman Randal Crouch said all but $7,800 of the money would be paid back after the airport received a grant disbursement from the state. The $7,800 is the city's portion of the improvement cost, Crouch said.
He also praised the airport commission for finding ways to save $9,000 by reducing costs and raising fees.


text:
The ninth-grade Lady Whirlwinds (23-1, 10-0) earned a 25-15, 25-17 win over the Lady Red Devils, thanks to a balanced attack. Julie Brown, Cory Shaffer, Ellie Butler and Budnisha Robinson each had five points, while Brown added an ace and a kill and Shaffer added two aces. Brookelynn Long and Sarah Cole had four points each, while Cole added a block.
The RJHS East eighth-graders (10-0) faced even less resistance as they beat Atkins 25-10, 25-17. Alyssa Owens dominated with 13 points and five aces. Shelbi Thompson added 11 points and an ace, while Madison McKinley had six kills.
The East Lady Whirlwinds will participate in the 8-team Devil Pup Invitational at 9 a.m. Saturday, then will host Beebe at 4:30 p.m. Monday.
West downs Beebe
BEEBE — The Russellville Junior High Westside Lady Whirlwinds continued rolling through the Central Arkansas Junior High Conference with a 25-21, 25-12 win here over the Lady Badgers.
Russellville (18-4, 8-1) got a big night from Brittany Smith, who had five aces, two kills, a team-high six digs and hit .400. Meredith Darnell had four kills and four digs, Alice Bewley recorded four kills and Kelsey Stone hit .429 for three kills.
The West eighth-graders (9-1) also won in two games as they came out on top 25-16, 25-22. Spencer Jones had a well-rounded performance as she recorded six kills, four digs, four aces and passed for a 2.1. Ashton Sitkowski hit .333 with two kills, and passes for a 2.5. Shameka Ealy chipped in three kills and three aces, while Anna-Claire Pilkington led the team with 10 assists.
The West Lady Whirlwinds will participate in the 8-team Devil Pup Invitational at 9 a.m. Saturday, then will visit Paris at 4:30 p.m. Monday.


text:
The UIW Nutrition Program strives to provide responsive, individualized attention to develop students in a multicultural, socially cohesive environment in order to create a better future through food and nutrition.
Mission Statement
The Mission of the University of the Incarnate Word Nutrition Program is to prepare professionals committed to providing nutrition and dietetic services to improve the health and well-being of individuals and groups. The program emphasizes the importance of scientific and evidence-based practice, ethical decision-making, and understanding of social justice issues including regional through global ecological dimensions of food and nutrition.
The Undergraduate Nutrition and Dietetics track prepares students for successful entry into entry-level food and nutrition careers. We are committed to providing an educational environment that promotes collaboration, teamwork, and development of leadership rooted in values of social justice.
The Undergraduate Nutrition Science track prepares students for successful entry into graduate programs and professional programs such as medicine, physical therapy, dentistry, pharmacy, and optometry.
The Graduate Nutrition Program engages students in learning, research and discovery, and service to address human needs by promoting nutrition for well-being across the life-span of individuals, families and communities while embracing evidence and ethical-values-based decision-making.
The Didactic Program in Dietetics prepares students for successful entry into dietetic internships to meet the needs of the region.
The Nutrition Program at the University of the Incarnate Word integrates the study of biology, chemistry, behavioral sciences, and business into various areas of nutrition, including food preparation, food service, nutrition programming, nutrition education, and nutrition therapy.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects the employment of dietitians to increase by 20 percent from 2010 to 2020, faster than the average growth for all occupations. This is due to an increasing emphasis on disease prevention through improving dietary habits. Graduates of the University of the Incarnate Word Nutrition programs have been primarily placed in positions related to food and nutrition in San Antonio, Texas. The majority of our graduates either obtain placement in a dietetic internship or pursue graduate education after receiving their bachelor's degree.
Graduates of the University of the Incarnate Word Nutrition Program are employed in the following areas: health care, food service management, food industry, community nutrition programs and governmental agencies, private practice, wellness, sales, research, and media communications.
Dr. Neeta Singh
Nutrition Program
4301 Broadway
San Antonio TX 78209
(210) 829-3167


text:
Come on Chappy and Hanny!!!!
Ugh...crapper to RF, Bruce ends game throwing out runner at home
Strike him OUT!!!
We only live in patches. - H. G. Wells
And how about 20-over .500 kids!!!!!!!!!!
20 games over!!!! 9 game winning streak!!! keep on rollin baby!
take that ump
The older I get - the better I was
and yes - I hate the Cardinals (Reds fan since 1958)
Loving this team.
Chappy should "roll" this ump.
He also should be unavailable tomorrow.
62 games until the playoffs
3. Stubbs
2. Marshall
And the # 1 star: Ryan Ludwick
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.


text:
NEW YORK, Sept. 25 (UPI) -- Hollywood actor Arnold Schwarzenegger says Maria Shriver confronted him in a marriage therapist's office about her suspicions he cheated on her.
The New York Daily News said the film star and former politician recounts in his new autobiography "Total Recall: My Unbelievably True Life Story" how he thought his estranged wife set up the counseling appointment in 2011 to help them transition from public to private life after he left the California governor's office.
Once they were in the session, however, Shriver asked him if he fathered a son with Mildred Baena, a married member of the family's household staff years earlier, Schwarzenegger said.
"The minute we sat down, the therapist turned to me and said, 'Maria wanted to come here today and to ask about a child -- whether you fathered a child with your housekeeper Mildred,'" the Daily News quoted Schwarzenegger, 65, as saying in the book.
"I told the therapist, 'It's true,'" Schwarzenegger wrote.
He said in the book he wished he had told his wife about the fling -- which happened in 1996 when Shriver was on vacation with their children and he was in Los Angeles working on the film "Batman & Robin" -- but said he kept the secret because he was ashamed of his behavior.
"Instead of doing the right thing, I'd just put the truth in a mental compartment and locked it up where I didn't deal with it every day," he wrote.
Schwarzenegger went on to say he reassured Shriver "it was my screwup" and she was the "perfect wife," but too much damage was done to save their marriage.
Shriver filed for divorce last summer after 25 years of marriage. She and Schwarzenegger have four children.
Joseph, the actor's son with Baena, is 15.


text:
Mercy Hospital Among The First in the Nation to Perform Single-Site Robotic Surgery
Home » About Us » News » 2012 News » Mercy Hospital Among The First in the Nation to Perform Single-Site Robotic Surgery
February 7, 2012
Each year, about one million people in the United States will undergo gallbladder removal surgery. Of that number, 40% of these patients are women, ages 18 to 44. In the Buffalo area alone, there were nearly 1,600 gallbladder removal surgeries performed in 2010.
Thanks to the latest breakthrough in robotic-assisted surgery, patients can now have their gallbladder removed in about the same amount of time as a lunch break, and be home in time for dinner with minimal discomfort and potentially no visible scar. Minimally invasive surgery has taken yet another step forward.
Kenneth Eckhert, III, MD, a general surgeon and chairman of Mercy Hospital's Robotic Committee, is among the very first surgeons in the United States and the first in Western New York to perform a robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (gallbladder removal surgery) using a single incision through the belly button.
The first Western New York procedure took place at Mercy Hospital of Buffalo on January 27.
Eckhert removed the gallbladder in 60 minutes and the patient returned home five hours later. Mercy Hospital is one of just two hospitals in New York State and one of only twenty sites across the country to offer this groundbreaking surgery, made possible through a new FDA-approved single-site advancement to the da Vinci® Robotic Surgical System.
"One of the greatest advantages of having the robotic assistance for single-incision surgery is being able to offer this minimally invasive and virtually scarless surgery to more of my patients," said Dr. Eckhert. "I would estimate that just 10% of my patients were good candidates for conventional single incision laparoscopic surgery, but now with the aid of the da Vinci system, I think I will be able to offer this type of surgery to 80% of my patients."
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. received FDA-approval on the new operating platform for the da Vinci® Robotic Surgical System specifically for cholecystectomy procedures, the surgical removal of the gallbladder. The system enables surgeons to reduce the traditional number of incisions from 4- 6 small incisions to one incision that is less than an inch in length.
"I think this is only the beginning and eventually we will expand the use of this tool for more procedures," said Dr. Eckhert. "The robotic system gives me the ability to not only operate through one small incision and through a natural body opening like the umbilicus, but it gives me the precision and three-dimensional, high definition vision system to enhance surgical capabilities."
Surgeons at Catholic Health's Mercy Hospital of Buffalo utilize the da Vinci System for a variety of minimally invasive robotic surgical procedures, including urological, gynecological, cardiac and general surgery. In 2005, Mercy Hospital was one of the first hospitals in the Western New York region and one of the earliest in the country to acquire the da Vinci® Robotic Surgical System.


text:
Essential Wabash
One hundred seniors told Wabash administrators the things that "must be preserved" at their college.
DURING SMALL GROUP discussions during lunch last spring, Dean of the College Raymond Williams H'76 asked 100 seniors, "What has been so valuable in your Wabash experience that it must be preserved?"
Some of their answers—and their enthusiasm—surprised the professor emeritus of religion, who came out of retirement last year to serve as dean while the College sought a replacement for Mauri Ditzler '75, now president of Monmouth College.
"I have a very high opinion of Wabash faculty and the Wabash education, but I was still surprised at how positive, how outgoing they were about their high regard for Wabash faculty,"Williams says. "I had not expected the depth of their feeling. That's gratifying."
Dean Williams reviewed his notes from those senior interviews with WM, sharing the responses that came up most frequently during those conversations.
This was overwhelmingly the most important to them.
"I wouldn't have graduated without that," one student said. Another said, "It creates person-to-person trust."
They praised aspects of that close relationship: the open-door policy; the opportunity to do research with faculty. One person said, "Everyone is available, open, and friendly," and he named a particularly helpful staff member. "Professors put students first," one student said. Another appreciated "the openness and informality between students and professors. Camaraderie."
"Faculty get onto you for missing class or messing up," said one student. "They'll yell across the mall, 'Where were you today?'"
These came up in every session and were usually the first thing on the table: open door; mutual respect; and trust.
"It forces you to grow up." One student confessed that in his freshman tutorial, he was "scared straight" by the writing, research, and high expectations.
They appreciated the many opportunities to participate in clubs and on teams. Several said that these experiences played a major role in their leadership development.
Some spoke specifically about the Gentleman's Rule and the responsibility it places on students.They said students need to be reminded that the Gentleman's Rule isn't simply a license to do what they want to do—personal responsibility is essential.
They felt that this array of freedom, trust, and the ability for them to grow and become responsible was an important part of their education here.
A number of students mentioned that the all-male character of the College encourages relaxed relations and freedom.
They mentioned the importance of intentionality in defining manhood and masculinity and giving students the capacity to do that for themselves, to find their own right path.
They spoke positively about immersion trips and study abroad, along with summer opportunities for internships and research—Dill Internship grants, Ecuador, and the immersion experience in New York were all mentioned. Several had their first experience of being on a plane, traveling out of the country, or walking through a big city during those trips.
One student said Wabash had prepared him well for his off-campus experience. For two years he had learned at Wabash what he needed to know to take full advantage of the experience he had off campus. Thus, study abroad enriched his Wabash education.
Students appreciated visiting artists and lecturers, saying these need to be broadbased and, when they were, they provided many valuable cultural opportunities.
I don't think faculty realize what high regard students have for them and how much students look to them as role models.
Wabash students expect to be pushed, to be stretched, to be led to be their best selves, and they value the open-door policy and the close relationships they have with faculty, but I'm not sure students realize how much work that is, and how hard the Wabash faculty work.
The best Wabash faculty work enormously hard to create the kind of learning that teaches Wabash students so well. The open door is the metaphor for that whole ethos of excellent teaching and learning.
That ethos is handed down to new faculty by veteran professors who have come to realize that the most satisfying aspects of being a faculty member are teaching and close involvement with students, which are more life-giving for faculty, in the long run, than anything else they do.
What do you think?
How does your Wabash experience stack up against that of the Class of 2006? What "essentials" did they miss?What aspects of your Wabash experience were so valuable that they must be preserved?
Let us know by emailing the editor at email@example.com


text:
The Brady Bunch: Where Are They Now
Q: Our family just adopted a cat, and my husband and I are debating whether she should stay indoors all the time or go out during the day. What are your thoughts?
A: Asking a vet if your cat should be kept inside is like asking a dentist if you should brush your teeth. My office is currently caring for eight felines that are sick or injured as a result of their open-air adventures. Statistics vary, but house cats live, on average, nine years longer than their outdoor counterparts. Makes sense—have you ever heard of a pet being hit by a car while snoozing on a recliner? And traffic is just one hazard. Kitties who roam outside risk exposure to potentially fatal diseases, including feline leukemia, feline AIDS, and rabies, as well as less dangerous but still unpleasant parasites and infections (fleas, ticks, ringworm). Then there are predators, like coyotes, raccoons, dogs, even humans with guns.
Q: When my cat sits on the windowsill, she meows in a way that almost sounds as if she's chirping. Is this normal?
A: At the very least, it's common. My clients often ask me this question. And my clinical technician has a theory about why her kitty, Nica, makes a similar racket while staring out the window: "She's calling in the birds." Now, that's speculation on my tech's part, but experts have postulated that cats imitate the sounds made by their prey to disarm the creatures. So your pet's chattering may well be her attempt at avian mimicry.
Next time you notice her chirping at the window, look outside. Are the cat's eyes glued to a bird, squirrel, or rabbit? Is her tail fluffed up and twitching from side to side? If so, she's probably smacking her lips in anticipation of a great catch. Felines are natural-born predators, and though domesticated, yours wants very much to chase the animals on the other side of the glass. In other words, all that windowsill chatter is an expression of pure feral excitement.
25 Places Around The World With The Most Epic Sunsets