To contact us Click HERE
Germany is just one of many countries that have now implemented the Territorial Tax system. Every state that has done this has shown an increase in revenue as well as a reduction in unemployment.
The United States has not done this as of yet but it would be a real positive move to get a lot of dollars that are now overseas that want to come back here but the tax rate is too high. The question now is why hasn't this been done to help our struggling economy?
Germany Promotes Competition with Shift to Territorial Taxation System
Source: "Germany Promotes Competition with Shift to Territorial Taxation System," Tax Foundation, November 15, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Tax Foundation looks at the example of Germany and its shift to the territorial tax system in its continuing effort to show the benefits the United States can derive from shifting to such a system.
•In 2001, Germany fully terminated international expense allocation requirements and allowed deductions for all expenses related to exempt foreign income.
•The government reduced the exemption for foreign income to 95 percent.
•Active and passive incomes that are subjected to tax rates over 25 percent in the original jurisdiction are eligible for exemption.
•In addition, any income generated by foreign branches of a German company is exempt if it resides in a treaty country.
•And to make its companies more competitive internationally, Germany reduced the combined tax rate on corporate income from 56 percent to 30.2 percent in 1998.
To prevent the tax base from eroding, the government has limited the deductibility of interest surplus, ensured that losses on the sale of subsidiary corporate stock are not deductible, and has levied taxes on all passive income in low-tax jurisdictions.
As a result of its shift, Germany has ranked at the top when it comes to gross domestic product per capita and has also become the third-leading exporter in the world. Moreover, the unemployment rate has been cut by more than half since 2005, registering at 5.4 percent now.
Corporate tax revenue was not a primary factor in Germany's decision to pivot to a territorial system because it has not relied heavily on it in past years.
29 Kasım 2012 Perşembe
Amtrak Subsides & Unions Crushes Business
To contact us Click HERE
Oh no, privatize the rail roads? What have we come to? Making the railraods pay their own way or go out of business is how the system should work, but with government sudsides it's out of control.
Of course the unions are going hand in hand with the government to make Amtrak a sink hole for taxpayer dollars. Is this news?
The Case for Privatizing Amtrak
Source: Randal O'Toole, "Stopping the Runaway Train: The Case for Privatizing Amtrak," Cato Institute, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
Despite being touted as a cheap, attractive option for intercity travel, Amtrak has become an insignificant mode of transportation that is bloated with government subsidies. It is increasingly important to evaluate Amtrak before Congress approves its future budget requests, says Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
•The average American travels about 15,000 miles by automobiles around 2,000 miles by air.
•However, the average American only travels about 20 miles a year on Amtrak.
•As a result of Amtrak taking over the nation's passenger trains, rail fares have increased by 110 percent since 1970.
•Passengers pay more per mile on Amtrak fares that they would on airfares, yet it receives almost nine times more subsidies than the airline industry and more than 20 times more subsidies compared to driving.
Proponents of the passenger train have long touted the energy savings that riders could benefit from when compared to planes and automobiles. However, a look at the data may prove that claim to be false.
•At 2.4 people per car, the average automobile uses 2,226 British thermal units (BTU) per passenger mile.
•However, Amtrak uses an average of 2,271 BTU per passenger mile.
•Moreover, airline energy efficiency has been growing at 3.1 percent a year, meaning that it will become more energy efficient than Amtrak by 2023.
Passenger trains fail to gain the necessary ridership to make them independent of government support. There are several factors that have resulted in the decline of popularity of trains like Amtrak:
•Unions that insist on antiquated work rules.
•Government regulators that place unnecessary burdens on railroads.
•Subsidies to other transportation industries.
•Unfair taxation of railroads when publicly owned airports and highways pay no taxes.
•Railroad managers that would rather cater to freight trains because they are profitable.
Rather than continuing to subsidize an inefficient and unpopular mode of transportation, the federal government should privatize Amtrak. To make it effective, Congress should also level the playing field by reducing or eliminating subsidies for other modes of transportation. This would incentivize private operators to innovate and provide passenger rail services where it is needed most. Furthermore, private operators would find ways to make their services more efficient.
Of course the unions are going hand in hand with the government to make Amtrak a sink hole for taxpayer dollars. Is this news?
The Case for Privatizing Amtrak
Source: Randal O'Toole, "Stopping the Runaway Train: The Case for Privatizing Amtrak," Cato Institute, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
Despite being touted as a cheap, attractive option for intercity travel, Amtrak has become an insignificant mode of transportation that is bloated with government subsidies. It is increasingly important to evaluate Amtrak before Congress approves its future budget requests, says Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
•The average American travels about 15,000 miles by automobiles around 2,000 miles by air.
•However, the average American only travels about 20 miles a year on Amtrak.
•As a result of Amtrak taking over the nation's passenger trains, rail fares have increased by 110 percent since 1970.
•Passengers pay more per mile on Amtrak fares that they would on airfares, yet it receives almost nine times more subsidies than the airline industry and more than 20 times more subsidies compared to driving.
Proponents of the passenger train have long touted the energy savings that riders could benefit from when compared to planes and automobiles. However, a look at the data may prove that claim to be false.
•At 2.4 people per car, the average automobile uses 2,226 British thermal units (BTU) per passenger mile.
•However, Amtrak uses an average of 2,271 BTU per passenger mile.
•Moreover, airline energy efficiency has been growing at 3.1 percent a year, meaning that it will become more energy efficient than Amtrak by 2023.
Passenger trains fail to gain the necessary ridership to make them independent of government support. There are several factors that have resulted in the decline of popularity of trains like Amtrak:
•Unions that insist on antiquated work rules.
•Government regulators that place unnecessary burdens on railroads.
•Subsidies to other transportation industries.
•Unfair taxation of railroads when publicly owned airports and highways pay no taxes.
•Railroad managers that would rather cater to freight trains because they are profitable.
Rather than continuing to subsidize an inefficient and unpopular mode of transportation, the federal government should privatize Amtrak. To make it effective, Congress should also level the playing field by reducing or eliminating subsidies for other modes of transportation. This would incentivize private operators to innovate and provide passenger rail services where it is needed most. Furthermore, private operators would find ways to make their services more efficient.
Medical Device Tax Drives HealthCare Cost Up
To contact us Click HERE
What a good deal this is for our country, according to progressive socialists that is - one more ObamaCare nail in our coffin. Mr Obama believes that if America can punished enough by reducing our prosperity, other countries will like us more, and the world will finally know that America is getting it just what it deserves for all the problems we have caused the rest of the world with out greed and nation building.
Progressive socialist, as well as liberal Marxists of all strips, believe income redistribution is what will make America great, giving all classes all things. That freedom will be degraded or eliminated is of no importance, as long as the elite few have their freedom to direct the rest of us into dependency and poverty, a directed society from the top down, life will be sustainable.
After all, isn't life actually just about surviving from one day to the next? Why would anyone want to live like this? Why would anyone vote to make this happen? Can it be ignorance or are many among us ready to be subservient?
I guess when one looks at California and how they voted to raise taxes on themselves, the dark clouds heading our way become a little darker.
The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation
Source: Thomas A. Hemphill, "The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation," American Action Forum, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010 and imposes several tax increases totaling approximately $800 billion over the next 10 years. A 2.3 percent excise tax will be imposed upon medical device manufacturers. This excise tax, which is set to be implemented in January 2013, will be applied to annual revenue and will be assessed on medical devices sold in the United States, including those that are imported, says Thomas A. Hemphill, an economic and regulatory expert with the American Action Forum.
•The medical device industry is highly competitive and has hundreds of firms in the market, with 95 percent of them reporting sales revenues less than $100 million.
•Ninety-eight percent of companies employ less than 500 workers and 80 percent of companies employ fewer than 50 employees.
•The United States is considered to be the leader of the medical device industry, housing 32 of the 46 medical device companies that report $1 billion or more in annual sales.
U.S. medical device companies have an edge in the status quo but that could slip as the excise tax reduces profits for many of these companies.
•One study found that net profits could be reduced anywhere between 6.8 percent and 40 percent.
•According to one survey, 42 percent of venture capital firms planned to make fewer medical device investments.
•Venture capital funding for the medical devices industry dropped to 10 percent of total funding dollars in the second quarter of 2012, a 2 percent decline from the first quarter.
The tax is going to be harmful to companies across the board. Small- and medium-sized companies will be especially hard hit considering that it will be difficult for them to attract the necessary funding from venture capitalists to fund their projects. Similarly, these companies are going to have a difficult time since companies that innovate typically suffer losses in the first years when they are researching and developing.
Progressive socialist, as well as liberal Marxists of all strips, believe income redistribution is what will make America great, giving all classes all things. That freedom will be degraded or eliminated is of no importance, as long as the elite few have their freedom to direct the rest of us into dependency and poverty, a directed society from the top down, life will be sustainable.
After all, isn't life actually just about surviving from one day to the next? Why would anyone want to live like this? Why would anyone vote to make this happen? Can it be ignorance or are many among us ready to be subservient?
I guess when one looks at California and how they voted to raise taxes on themselves, the dark clouds heading our way become a little darker.
The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation
Source: Thomas A. Hemphill, "The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation," American Action Forum, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010 and imposes several tax increases totaling approximately $800 billion over the next 10 years. A 2.3 percent excise tax will be imposed upon medical device manufacturers. This excise tax, which is set to be implemented in January 2013, will be applied to annual revenue and will be assessed on medical devices sold in the United States, including those that are imported, says Thomas A. Hemphill, an economic and regulatory expert with the American Action Forum.
•The medical device industry is highly competitive and has hundreds of firms in the market, with 95 percent of them reporting sales revenues less than $100 million.
•Ninety-eight percent of companies employ less than 500 workers and 80 percent of companies employ fewer than 50 employees.
•The United States is considered to be the leader of the medical device industry, housing 32 of the 46 medical device companies that report $1 billion or more in annual sales.
U.S. medical device companies have an edge in the status quo but that could slip as the excise tax reduces profits for many of these companies.
•One study found that net profits could be reduced anywhere between 6.8 percent and 40 percent.
•According to one survey, 42 percent of venture capital firms planned to make fewer medical device investments.
•Venture capital funding for the medical devices industry dropped to 10 percent of total funding dollars in the second quarter of 2012, a 2 percent decline from the first quarter.
The tax is going to be harmful to companies across the board. Small- and medium-sized companies will be especially hard hit considering that it will be difficult for them to attract the necessary funding from venture capitalists to fund their projects. Similarly, these companies are going to have a difficult time since companies that innovate typically suffer losses in the first years when they are researching and developing.
EPA's New Regulation Driving UP Food and Fuel - Again!
To contact us Click HERE
I believe the Environmental Protection Agency is the most dangerous entity in our country, even more so then the Justice Dept. Of course, Mr Obama is the single most dangerous individual and the greatest threat to our freedom and prosperity as he directs the EPA.
Just the fact that 40% of corn production in this country goes to Ethanol is insane. Oh, but wait, didn't just this November 51% of the population vote to continue the insanity? Is it possible that a majority of our population can't make the connection between a high food prices and gasoline and Mr Obama? After 4 years of this nightmare, the votes can't make this connection? Who voted for this, willingly? Who are these people????
The EPA vs. State Economies
Source: Marlo Lewis, "The EPA vs. State Economies," National Review Online, November 19, 2012
November 29, 2012
The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is increasing the biofuel-blending requirements. This change can give rise to numerous damaging spillovers throughout the economy, says Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
•This program requires refiners to blend increasing quantities of biofuel, which are mostly corn ethanol, into the nation's motor-fuel supply.
•The 2012 target is to blend 13.2 billion gallons of biofuel into gasoline.
•In 2013, the target is 13.8 billion gallons.
•This year, 40 percent of the nation's corn will be used for ethanol manufacturing.
•This alone will increase corn prices, harming state poultry, beef, pork and dairy farmers who use corn as animal feed.
Moreover, such an initiative does not follow sound economic reasoning.
•In a competitive market, very few would buy ethanol as motor fuel because the substance has one-third less energy than gasoline and does not make up the difference in price.
•At the current rate, on average, it would cost the consumer $500 a year to switch to E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
Arkansas' experience demonstrates the damaging effects the RFS can have on a state economy. According to Arkansas governor Mike Beebe:
•Virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe drought conditions, and accelerating corn prices impose a severe economic impact on the state's livestock producers.
•While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn, the fuel standard aggravates the problem -- the policy has boosted corn prices 193 percent since 2005.
•Agriculture accounts for around 25 percent of the state's economic activity.
•Indeed, the RFS will disproportionally hurt regions with extensive farming industries, while following inefficient market principles.
Just the fact that 40% of corn production in this country goes to Ethanol is insane. Oh, but wait, didn't just this November 51% of the population vote to continue the insanity? Is it possible that a majority of our population can't make the connection between a high food prices and gasoline and Mr Obama? After 4 years of this nightmare, the votes can't make this connection? Who voted for this, willingly? Who are these people????
The EPA vs. State Economies
Source: Marlo Lewis, "The EPA vs. State Economies," National Review Online, November 19, 2012
November 29, 2012
The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is increasing the biofuel-blending requirements. This change can give rise to numerous damaging spillovers throughout the economy, says Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
•This program requires refiners to blend increasing quantities of biofuel, which are mostly corn ethanol, into the nation's motor-fuel supply.
•The 2012 target is to blend 13.2 billion gallons of biofuel into gasoline.
•In 2013, the target is 13.8 billion gallons.
•This year, 40 percent of the nation's corn will be used for ethanol manufacturing.
•This alone will increase corn prices, harming state poultry, beef, pork and dairy farmers who use corn as animal feed.
Moreover, such an initiative does not follow sound economic reasoning.
•In a competitive market, very few would buy ethanol as motor fuel because the substance has one-third less energy than gasoline and does not make up the difference in price.
•At the current rate, on average, it would cost the consumer $500 a year to switch to E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
Arkansas' experience demonstrates the damaging effects the RFS can have on a state economy. According to Arkansas governor Mike Beebe:
•Virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe drought conditions, and accelerating corn prices impose a severe economic impact on the state's livestock producers.
•While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn, the fuel standard aggravates the problem -- the policy has boosted corn prices 193 percent since 2005.
•Agriculture accounts for around 25 percent of the state's economic activity.
•Indeed, the RFS will disproportionally hurt regions with extensive farming industries, while following inefficient market principles.
Unemployment Numbers Managed by Obama Administration
To contact us Click HERE
What this boils down to is politics - what ever makes the Obama administration look good is the method that will be used. The real sad part in this is everyone knows this is a fraud, especially the media, but most turn a blind eye to the problem. The general public has no clue as they are kept in the dark by the media.
Worse, the general public that just watches the lettered channels and reads the local new paper will not know any of this. Would anyone that is awake to reality actually believe the news media in this country, other then FOX and maybe The Wall Street Journal, to report the fact that unemployment could actually be 16%?
Understanding Job Statistics
Source: Robert McTeer, "Understanding Job Statistics," National Center for Policy Analysis, November 29, 2012.
November 29, 2012
It is important to understand how job statistics are derived and what that means for public policy, says Robert McTeer, a distinguished fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
To-date, the United States has only regained about half of the almost 9 million lost jobs in 2008 and 2009. Job growth has improved recently, but is still below the rate of past recoveries. Consider:
•Payroll employment increased by 171,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate increased to 7.9 percent, representing 12.3 million people.
•The payroll numbers were revised up by 50,000 in August and by 34,000 in September.
Unemployment averaged below 5 percent before the recession. It peaked at 10 percent in late 2009, and declined to 7.9 percent as of October. It is still about 3 percentage points above what would reasonably be considered normal or full employment.
The situation, however, is worse than these numbers portray. Not only is unemployment high as a percent of the labor force, but the labor force itself has been shrinking as job seekers give up and drop out.
•Indeed, labor force participation (job seekers and the employed) has declined from 66 percent before the recession to 63.8 percent.
•Moreover, employment, as a percent of the population, has declined from over 63 percent before the recession to 58.8 percent in October.
These numbers are estimates based on samples, which make them subject to sampling error. The payroll number comes from reports submitted by 141,000 business establishments and government entities representing about 486,000 workers. Statistically, at the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" payroll change is the estimated number plus or minus 100,000. In October, that is between 71,000 and 271,000. A larger sample size would narrow that range by reducing the sampling error.
The unemployment rate is derived from a separate household survey, which has an even smaller sample size and a wider confidence range. Because the household survey's sample size is smaller than the establishment survey, its confidence range is larger. At the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" number of unemployed persons is the estimated number plus or minus 280,000, and the "true" unemployment rate is the estimated rate plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. Thus, the estimated unemployment rate of 7.9 percent in October means that the "true" rate was between 6 percent and 9.8 percent.
Worse, the general public that just watches the lettered channels and reads the local new paper will not know any of this. Would anyone that is awake to reality actually believe the news media in this country, other then FOX and maybe The Wall Street Journal, to report the fact that unemployment could actually be 16%?
Understanding Job Statistics
Source: Robert McTeer, "Understanding Job Statistics," National Center for Policy Analysis, November 29, 2012.
November 29, 2012
It is important to understand how job statistics are derived and what that means for public policy, says Robert McTeer, a distinguished fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
To-date, the United States has only regained about half of the almost 9 million lost jobs in 2008 and 2009. Job growth has improved recently, but is still below the rate of past recoveries. Consider:
•Payroll employment increased by 171,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate increased to 7.9 percent, representing 12.3 million people.
•The payroll numbers were revised up by 50,000 in August and by 34,000 in September.
Unemployment averaged below 5 percent before the recession. It peaked at 10 percent in late 2009, and declined to 7.9 percent as of October. It is still about 3 percentage points above what would reasonably be considered normal or full employment.
The situation, however, is worse than these numbers portray. Not only is unemployment high as a percent of the labor force, but the labor force itself has been shrinking as job seekers give up and drop out.
•Indeed, labor force participation (job seekers and the employed) has declined from 66 percent before the recession to 63.8 percent.
•Moreover, employment, as a percent of the population, has declined from over 63 percent before the recession to 58.8 percent in October.
These numbers are estimates based on samples, which make them subject to sampling error. The payroll number comes from reports submitted by 141,000 business establishments and government entities representing about 486,000 workers. Statistically, at the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" payroll change is the estimated number plus or minus 100,000. In October, that is between 71,000 and 271,000. A larger sample size would narrow that range by reducing the sampling error.
The unemployment rate is derived from a separate household survey, which has an even smaller sample size and a wider confidence range. Because the household survey's sample size is smaller than the establishment survey, its confidence range is larger. At the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" number of unemployed persons is the estimated number plus or minus 280,000, and the "true" unemployment rate is the estimated rate plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. Thus, the estimated unemployment rate of 7.9 percent in October means that the "true" rate was between 6 percent and 9.8 percent.
28 Kasım 2012 Çarşamba
Social Securty : Retirement Subsidy Only
To contact us Click HERE
This is a little confusing in that what one makes before retirement is relative to benefits they will receive upon retirement, especially with the rising or falling prices effecting living standards. What you make in preretirement will not be anything like what you will get from Social Security and with good reason. What you paid in is not even close to what you take out in retirement.
But hey, never mind all this confusion, the best way to retire is make sure you can live the life you think you want by preparing to live without Social Security. If you do this, and have the will power to deny yourself a little along the way, believe your retirement will be a breeze.
It's also important to point out, retirement is more then having enough money, it's about being satisfied with what you have and enjoy it. Don't complain about what you don't have as this will diminish the true returns of your new self directed life.
Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates
Source: Charles Blahous, "Understanding Social Security Benefit Adequacy: Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates," Mercatus Center, November 15, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The adequacy of Social Security benefits are often measured by the "replacement rate," a ratio of one's retirement benefit to preretirement income. While this is intended to provide equity in benefits over time, there are some misunderstood features that have some unintended consequences for the overall evaluation of the program, says Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and public trustee for Medicare and Social Security.
•First, younger workers' preretirement standards of living decline relative to their postretirement living standards because the cost of benefits increases over time.
•Second, the actual replacement rates are high because they are not reported as they would be calculated by financial planners.
•Third, the benefit formula causes replacement rates to rise over time for a given level of real wages.
There are also three often misunderstood aspects of Social Security replacement rate.
•First, the replacement rate is increasing relative to workers' standards of living. But since younger generations must pay higher tax burdens to receive the same replacement rates, there is a decline in net benefits.
•Second, Social Security replacement rates are higher than people assume. However, this assumes replacement rates as a percentage of career "wage-indexed" earnings, which results in under-evaluation.
•Finally, Social Security benefits are rising for a given level of real wages. However, the current benefit formula keeps replacement rates constant for average-wage workers, which delivers rising benefits to workers with the same real wages across time and contributes to rising system costs.
Furthermore, people are deterred from further labor market participation and saving because total retirement income replacement rates exceed 100 percent of late-career earnings. There are several reforms the federal government could pursue to make future program evaluation more accurate and help fix the finances of the program.
•First, prevent the decline in the ratio of preretirement income to postretirement benefits.
•Second, prevent Social Security from forcing low-income families and individuals from over-saving for retirement.
•Third, maintain constant replacement rates for those with the same real wages.
But hey, never mind all this confusion, the best way to retire is make sure you can live the life you think you want by preparing to live without Social Security. If you do this, and have the will power to deny yourself a little along the way, believe your retirement will be a breeze.
It's also important to point out, retirement is more then having enough money, it's about being satisfied with what you have and enjoy it. Don't complain about what you don't have as this will diminish the true returns of your new self directed life.
Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates
Source: Charles Blahous, "Understanding Social Security Benefit Adequacy: Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates," Mercatus Center, November 15, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The adequacy of Social Security benefits are often measured by the "replacement rate," a ratio of one's retirement benefit to preretirement income. While this is intended to provide equity in benefits over time, there are some misunderstood features that have some unintended consequences for the overall evaluation of the program, says Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and public trustee for Medicare and Social Security.
•First, younger workers' preretirement standards of living decline relative to their postretirement living standards because the cost of benefits increases over time.
•Second, the actual replacement rates are high because they are not reported as they would be calculated by financial planners.
•Third, the benefit formula causes replacement rates to rise over time for a given level of real wages.
There are also three often misunderstood aspects of Social Security replacement rate.
•First, the replacement rate is increasing relative to workers' standards of living. But since younger generations must pay higher tax burdens to receive the same replacement rates, there is a decline in net benefits.
•Second, Social Security replacement rates are higher than people assume. However, this assumes replacement rates as a percentage of career "wage-indexed" earnings, which results in under-evaluation.
•Finally, Social Security benefits are rising for a given level of real wages. However, the current benefit formula keeps replacement rates constant for average-wage workers, which delivers rising benefits to workers with the same real wages across time and contributes to rising system costs.
Furthermore, people are deterred from further labor market participation and saving because total retirement income replacement rates exceed 100 percent of late-career earnings. There are several reforms the federal government could pursue to make future program evaluation more accurate and help fix the finances of the program.
•First, prevent the decline in the ratio of preretirement income to postretirement benefits.
•Second, prevent Social Security from forcing low-income families and individuals from over-saving for retirement.
•Third, maintain constant replacement rates for those with the same real wages.
I've Been Banned
To contact us Click HERE
So much for having a conversation.
I visited the FaceBook page, True Dinos, of a young Earth creationist (YEC) run a fellow named Aaron Tulllock. You can no longer see my posts, because I've blocked by the administrator for "being a troll."
What did I do?
I asked about the design of the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. [See Smack Down.] Here's what left of the comments about Intelligent Design.
Then there was my comments on this post. Since True Dinos is also a biblical literalist, I informed him that the bible literally claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth. When pressed by another YEC called The Question Evolution Project, I provided not only the biblical verses, but a link to other biblical literalists who truly believe in geocentrism. [Regular readers might know my earlier blog posts Your Elementary School Teachers Were Right and LA Times Does Story on Geocentrism.] He never responded; in fact, his comments on True Dinos have been wiped.
Since The Question Evolution Project was unwilling to confront his obvious hypocrisy on the bible being literally true, I visited The Question Evolution Project FaceBook page. Because I had the audacity to debate, he promptly blocked me .
Oh, what am I to do now?
If any of the administrators from those pages wish to comment on this blog, they are free to do so. All I ask is that they not do so anonymously. They are free to use whatever language they see fit to use. They will not be banned.
A bit more about these two pages.
Aaron Tullock (True Dinos) claims to have sighted a living pterosaur in 1995 in Marion County, Texas. The fossil and geologic evidence shows quite dramatically that these reptiles became extinct about 65.5 million years ago. An excellent resource for those interested in pterosaurs is Pterosaur.net.
The paleontologists there say
Now for The Question Evolution Project. In their About section, they write "true science is not afraid to examine contrary evidence and allows alternative theories to the interpretation of the evidence." Agreed. Science does not make progress without questioning. Consider the Copernican revolution or the quantum revolution. So why was I banned? I presented biblical evidence that didn't fit their preconceived notions about what the bible says.
On the other hand, "the Admins have other things to do besides engage in lengthy debates." It's strange that for people that being interested in "scientific evidence and its interpretation" and "intellectual honesty and freedom," they refuse to discuss anything. How does The Question Evolution Project feel about questions? They say "[the site] is for people who can think for themselves and dare to ask questions," but don't ask them if they're geocentrists, because that will get you banned.
One last item, The Question Evolution Project claims that evolution is not a fact." What do scientists say about that?
The National Academy of Sciences says
The American Association for the Advancement of Science states
I imagine The Question Evolution Project will just say we're being bullies.
 |
| CREDIT: True Dinos |
 |
| CREDIT: True Dinos |
So much for having a conversation.
I visited the FaceBook page, True Dinos, of a young Earth creationist (YEC) run a fellow named Aaron Tulllock. You can no longer see my posts, because I've blocked by the administrator for "being a troll."
What did I do?
I asked about the design of the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. [See Smack Down.] Here's what left of the comments about Intelligent Design.
 |
| CREDIT: True Dinos |
Since The Question Evolution Project was unwilling to confront his obvious hypocrisy on the bible being literally true, I visited The Question Evolution Project FaceBook page. Because I had the audacity to debate, he promptly blocked me .
Oh, what am I to do now?
If any of the administrators from those pages wish to comment on this blog, they are free to do so. All I ask is that they not do so anonymously. They are free to use whatever language they see fit to use. They will not be banned.
A bit more about these two pages.
Aaron Tullock (True Dinos) claims to have sighted a living pterosaur in 1995 in Marion County, Texas. The fossil and geologic evidence shows quite dramatically that these reptiles became extinct about 65.5 million years ago. An excellent resource for those interested in pterosaurs is Pterosaur.net.
The paleontologists there say
Unusual winged animals reported from around the world have been suggested by some cryptozoologists and creationists to be modern-day pterosaurs that survived the end-Cretaceous extinction event. From Africa, people have reported a semi-aquatic winged animal called the kongamato while on New Guinea and the surrounding islands sightings are claimed of a gigantic, bioluminescent, crested flying creature (the duah) and a smaller, long-tailed version, the ropen. Fossil evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that pterosaurs did not survive beyond the end of the Cretaceous, and the sightings of pterosaur-like animals that have been reported appear to be a combination of hoaxes and misidentification of large birds and bats. So-called modern pterosaurs are generally ugly, dark, carnivorous, bat-winged horrors—they sound more like imaginary generic flying monsters than the pterosaurs we know from the fossil record.
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.Plus technically speaking, pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, although they did coexist.
Now for The Question Evolution Project. In their About section, they write "true science is not afraid to examine contrary evidence and allows alternative theories to the interpretation of the evidence." Agreed. Science does not make progress without questioning. Consider the Copernican revolution or the quantum revolution. So why was I banned? I presented biblical evidence that didn't fit their preconceived notions about what the bible says.
On the other hand, "the Admins have other things to do besides engage in lengthy debates." It's strange that for people that being interested in "scientific evidence and its interpretation" and "intellectual honesty and freedom," they refuse to discuss anything. How does The Question Evolution Project feel about questions? They say "[the site] is for people who can think for themselves and dare to ask questions," but don't ask them if they're geocentrists, because that will get you banned.
One last item, The Question Evolution Project claims that evolution is not a fact." What do scientists say about that?
The National Academy of Sciences says
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science states
But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
I imagine The Question Evolution Project will just say we're being bullies.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)