uhm, yeah, removing Jefferson and the Age of Enlightenment, removing reference to Casar Chavez, adding (and promoting!) Phyllis Schlafly, the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, removal of reference to Hispanic influence in the annexation of Texas from Mexico, the notion that evolution is a "controversial" theory
add to that the ridiculous notion that this country was founded as a christian nation. It wasn't. You can read that in the (current) history books. That's why they want the history books changed - so you can't read about the Jefferson Bible any more.
but that's just a few things, off the top of my head. See, I like being educated. How does that make me an atheist again? Because I don't believe? Or don't believe what you do?
Ok... First off, evolution IS a controversial theory. There isn't even definitive proof that the earth is older than 30,000 years, let alone the millions that would be required for evolution to occur. Before you try to retort with any of the current chemical dating systems, they are all easily contaminated and the slightest bit of contamination throws the readings off millions of years.
Also, the founders of America followed Christian doctrine when it came to rules on how to conduct ones self. So, although the founders were NOT Christian and believed in separation of Church and State, our nation WAS founded under Christian beliefs.
Now, as for the removal of topics from the text book, I can see why your upset. Our youth need to see that the world has had many important people with many different ideals, thoughts, and beliefs.
EVOLUTION IS JUST AS VALID AS FUCKING GRAVITY... you twit. You can deny facts in order to cling to the absurd idea of a magical man in the sky all you want to, but it doesn't make them any less factual. I think it's an overdose of intellectual irresponsibly for you to disregard evolution because you think you found one gap... but continue to believe in a deity that has more gaps than the new Texas school curriculum. /facepalm
Treaty of Tripoli. In no way founded as a Christian nation.
I agree, our youth needs to see that the world has had many important people with many different ideals, thoughts, and beliefs.... too bad the bigots in Texas cut out important minorities and even Thomas Jefferson because he wasn't CHRISTIAN ENOUGH to fit their version of history. So just as their reality is skewed they have now altered their history to be equally fucking skewed.
The US was founded on great Christian values such as owning a fellow human being simply based on the color of his skin. Because after all that's exactly what God intended for both Ham, and his descendants after Ham saw Noah naked.
We owe it to the Texans for giving the cartoonists such delicious material! I particularly like the Chi Trib one. It reminds me of William Buckley's famous line that a conservative is one who stands in front of the train of history yelling "Stop!"
It takes a lot to embarrass a Texan, but that school board of ours has suceeded. Or seceeded. And if you believe there is a scientist alive on God's green Earth that believes evolution is just a theory, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
For the gentleman who says that evolution is a controversial issue; first, dating for geological periods (the kind of stretches of time you are talking about) is done via physics, not chemistry, and even carbon dating,(Often used to place specimens within the holocene era) once the isolation of the carbon is completed (the step which is sensitive to contamination) the actual determination is done via isotope ratios, so we're back to physics. If you wish to be critical of a process, sir, it would behoove you to have a detailed understanding of that process. Unfortunately, it is obvious that your education in scientific matters is only slightly greater than your lack of understanding of fundamental Christian teaching. 30,000 years? I believe the date you're trying to propose is 23 October 4004 BC.
Let me point out that You can't empirically prove any theory about creation or evolution. You can offer proofs, but you can't definitively prove that it happened. Unless you can recreate the whole process (ie starting over by getting God to create another world while we watch, or another big bang for us to observe), you can't move the theory into the realm of fact.
Also, when you talk about God, you can't prove or disprove him with physics, that is why we put God into the metaphysical category...
Au contraire mon frere, evolution is clearly proven over and over again in the fossil record. Evolution is only controversial in the minds of people who are unable to see their ancient "holy" books as allegory and metaphor used to express philosophy and not history or fact. Remember we're talking about writers that didn't even know what the sun is just another star or that gravity is what makes the moon revolve around the earth. Here in Texas folks are ready to execute a man convicted of murderer on fairly slim evidence. Then when the accused requests testing the DNA evidence left at the crime scene Texans refuse to consider that evidence prior to execution because they're just that certain. How is it then, that with the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the age of the universe some are willing to ignore all the evidence and claim that they are controversial?
I remember reading about that case the other day... didn't he get a phone call just an hour before his execution putting it off? It seems like I also read that there was blood from two of the victims on him and his blood was at the crime scene, I may be wrong... might be a different case completely. lol But yeah... it is still a good representation of the average texan's outlook!
umm...did you seriously try to cast evolution as a theory because of the big bang theory?...fucking seriously? do you seriously believe that, even though evolution was developed by darwin in the late 18th century, that some crack pot who decided everything exploded and came together to spark one big family (the big bang theory, which was developed in the 20th century) are even remotely related? even though the big bang theory came 200 years later?
common misconception about evolution: it has no beginning, the big bang theory may try to throw itself in with evolution but it's not, darwin even said that evolution is no way to determine where we came from (i.e. we can't use evolution to determine the beginning/origins), but rather using where we definitely have to to determine where we are going (natural selection)
i guess they didn't teach you that in yer neyw purty skewl books (they got pictures and stuff y'all)
Um seriously did you just try to say evolution was in the 18th century and 200 years prior to the Big Bang. Darwinian Evolutionary theory came roughly 75 yrs before the big bang in the 19th century. Various other evolutionary theories floated around before then. If you're going to be high and mighty on your education bend, you might want to pay attention to Darwin's life and Hubble's.
As for those who said Evolution was definitive proof, you lack the same education the poor people in Texas are getting. It's still called a theory and many scientists will tell you the same. They will also tell you it is the most explanatory theory that is widely upheld again and again, but they still call it a theory.
As for it as valid as gravity. Well almost, but still you lack the education too. Gravity is given as a LAW and you can witness it happen easily multiple times a day. Evolution, while excellent as it is, stated above it still only garners the title of THEORY. And again, a good one at that, and again, it is upheld again and again with new discoveries, but still doesn't get the fact or law title.
Want good theological insight on this read Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlitt. Two authors, co-authored many books. Both will tell you that a good Christian will actually uphold Darwinian Evolution (as opposed to Lamarckian, a pre-Darwinian, or anyone else's version) and will do so until a better explanation comes along, if ever that moment happens. There you have good solid Christians telling you to follow Darwin :) if only we can get the folks in Texas to accept that. Oh and whether or not it is the better theory, it's still controversial, sadly.
Let me clarify a statement. Darwinian proposed his theory in the 19th century roughly 75 years before the Big Bang Theory was proposed in the 20th century. I am the same as the above statement. I apologize for not typing that properly. It made sense until I hit post.
As a Texan, an agnostic, a "believer" of evolution (because of my faith in logic), and generally a free-thinker, I will tell you definitively that the textbooks being used in college level courses are extremely left-leaning. For example, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty are described as the first terrorist organization in America. The chapter about the Great Depression in our American History II textbook talks an awful lot about the "redistribution of wealth", actually praises all of the Federal government's meddling in the economy, and chastises FDR for not doing more! It's like reading the Communist Manifesto! If we do not change these textbooks to reflect the truth, instead of Marxist propaganda, we are going to teach an entire generation that the only way they can survive is with the help of a huge, over reaching, Socialist government. The Constitution of the United States is not a "living document" like we learn in Government class. The federal government's powers are clearly enumerated and they do not have the power to do even half of the crazy, power hungry schemes they are involving us in. Let me also remind you Texas-haters out there that if we "bigots" and "rednecks" succeed, we take with us the fifteenth largest economy in the world (thanks to our self-reliance and limited government, I might add) and the U.S. will have a hard time paying back all the money squandered by Bush and Obama without us. You need us because Obama's new USSA socialist empire needs good producers like us to carry failed welfare states like California and Illinois. Have you thanked a Texan today?
Anon Stated: "Darwinian Evolutionary theory came roughly 75 yrs before the big bang in the 19th century. Various other evolutionary theories floated around before then."
Agreed.
Anon Stated: "It's still called a theory and many scientists will tell you the same. "
This statement seems to predispose that a theory could ever become something greater then a theory within Science. This predisposition is, however, inaccurate. You see, in science a theory is defined in science as "(n) ... A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. 'theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses'"
It is worth observing that the definition points out that theories can incorporate facts, laws, etc. A theory cannot become a law, just as a law cannot become a theory. The two things are completely separate and one does not show any more significance over the other. A theory in scientific terms can be more simply defined as an explanation of all observable data at any given point of time. A law on the other hand is simply an observable trend that when certain parameters are met will always be true. A theory in science can not become a law, but it can incorporate laws, which actually leads into the next bit of analysis.
Anon Stated: "Gravity is given as a LAW and you can witness it happen easily multiple times a day."
Actually this is where the lack of understanding possessed by this individual in regards to what a law and a theory are becomes obvious. The Theory of Gravitational Attraction does exist and within it holds the laws of gravity. Where the laws of gravity are merely the observable events (you drop something and it hits the earth), the theory is the explanation of why or how the event occurs.
For More Reading About Theories: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Theory
The same rules apply in the theory of evolution, it is built up of various laws and attempts to explain why their is such a wide diversity of life on this planet. Thus far numerous tests continually confirm the theory of evolution and its laws, it is this very theory that immunologists rely upon when attempting to deal with viral or bacterial strains.
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution's Laws: http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html
Anon Stated: "Oh and whether or not it [Evolution] is the better theory, it's still controversial, sadly."
Its unclear exactly what Anon is referring to when they state that there is still controversy as to what is "the better theory". The issue is that Anon isn't clear as to what exactly other theory exists which could better explain the speciation of life then Evolution. Aside this however, though there may be debate amongst the popular community (the amateur community) there is no true controversy in the scientific community. It can be estimated that 99% of scientists except evolutionary theory.
Source for percentage of scientists which accept evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution As Well As The Fact Of Evolution: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Just_a_theory
Anon Stated: "Darwinian Evolutionary theory came roughly 75 yrs before the big bang in the 19th century. Various other evolutionary theories floated around before then."
Agreed.
Anon Stated: "It's still called a theory and many scientists will tell you the same. "
This statement seems to predispose that a theory could ever become something greater then a theory within Science. This predisposition is, however, inaccurate. You see, in science a theory is defined in science as "(n) ... A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. 'theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses'"
It is worth observing that the definition points out that theories can incorporate facts, laws, etc. A theory cannot become a law, just as a law cannot become a theory. The two things are completely separate and one does not show any more significance over the other. A theory in scientific terms can be more simply defined as an explanation of all observable data at any given point of time. A law on the other hand is simply an observable trend that when certain parameters are met will always be true. A theory in science can not become a law, but it can incorporate laws, which actually leads into the next bit of analysis.
Anon Stated: "Gravity is given as a LAW and you can witness it happen easily multiple times a day."
Actually this is where the lack of understanding possessed by this individual in regards to what a law and a theory are becomes obvious. The Theory of Gravitational Attraction does exist and within it holds the laws of gravity. Where the laws of gravity are merely the observable events (you drop something and it hits the earth), the theory is the explanation of why or how the event occurs.
For More Reading About Theories: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Theory
The same rules apply in the theory of evolution, it is built up of various laws and attempts to explain why their is such a wide diversity of life on this planet. Thus far numerous tests continually confirm the theory of evolution and its laws, it is this very theory that immunologists rely upon when attempting to deal with viral or bacterial strains.
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution's Laws: http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html
Anon Stated: "Oh and whether or not it [Evolution] is the better theory, it's still controversial, sadly."
Its unclear exactly what Anon is referring to when they state that there is still controversy as to what is "the better theory". The issue is that Anon isn't clear as to what exactly other theory exists which could better explain the speciation of life then Evolution. Aside this however, though there may be debate amongst the popular community (the amateur community) there is no true controversy in the scientific community. It can be estimated that 99% of scientists except evolutionary theory.
Source for percentage of scientists which accept evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution As Well As The Fact Of Evolution: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Just_a_theory
lloyd, as far as most economists are concerned, the new deal was a good system, or at least a lot better than hoover's "do nothing" policy, it's not slanted if it's true, the fact that you don't like that particular move doesn't change the fact that it worked and still works if you apply it correctly
the constitution is, by definition, a living document in that we can change it to reflect the needs of society, that's why the founding fathers created the amendment process because they knew that 200 years later, we might not see things the exact way they saw it
and regarding your warning about the U.S. not being able to pay back our debts, have you even looked at the global economy? because if you have, you would know that we have around the 44th highest debt (i last checked in february though i don't imagine that's changed a whole lot) on a per-person basis, lower than about half of europe, you would also know that japan has used the Keynesian economic theory to stimulate their economy, much like what FDR did in the 30s and 40s, and you would know that they are currently gaining stability (in fact i think they're currently doing better than we are) but more importantly, you would know that the U.S. has never defaulted on its debt, how is this possible? because economics is currently a joke, money isn't worth a damn anywhere so basically the national debt is settled by million dollar favors to these different countries that we owe trillions of dollars to (also, the fact that we are supposedly 13 trillion dollars in the whole is also a joke because no one takes into account what other countries owe to us or the fact that we can quite frankly borrow more money and the fiasco continues, that's how we've operated for years and no one's taken any notice until i think one of the big news stations made it such a big deal when the big bad socialists took over and made a deal with karl marx's long lost soul)
also, this move isn't exactly limiting government, you're using a political standpoint to create a base in which to skew a shit ton of historical facts because you don't like some things that went down like jefferson's stance on religion, the "wall of separation" or apparently caesar chavez being famous enough to include into the curriculum along with a half dozen minority figures who made large impacts in texas as well as on the national level
but i guess they thought that country music, mccarthy's justification of a witch hunt and making sure that capitalism was taught as a good thing were all more important than caesar chavez, thurgood marshall and hariet tubman
For the anon person who posted this... "The US was founded on great Christian values such as owning a fellow human being simply based on the color of his skin. Because after all that's exactly what God intended for both Ham, and his descendants after Ham saw Noah naked." ...did you take into account the different timeperiods/culture clashes? or that the Old Testament/Torah wasnt written down until the time of Solomon, and before that, was passed on by Oral Tradition? (stories) or that many of our founding fathers were Diests?
Yee-haw! Gid er dun!
ReplyDeleteDo any of these artists actually know what was changed in the curriculum? Obviously not...
ReplyDeleteuhm, yeah, removing Jefferson and the Age of Enlightenment, removing reference to Casar Chavez, adding (and promoting!) Phyllis Schlafly, the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, removal of reference to Hispanic influence in the annexation of Texas from Mexico, the notion that evolution is a "controversial" theory
ReplyDeleteadd to that the ridiculous notion that this country was founded as a christian nation. It wasn't. You can read that in the (current) history books. That's why they want the history books changed - so you can't read about the Jefferson Bible any more.
but that's just a few things, off the top of my head. See, I like being educated. How does that make me an atheist again? Because I don't believe? Or don't believe what you do?
Ok...
ReplyDeleteFirst off, evolution IS a controversial theory. There isn't even definitive proof that the earth is older than 30,000 years, let alone the millions that would be required for evolution to occur. Before you try to retort with any of the current chemical dating systems, they are all easily contaminated and the slightest bit of contamination throws the readings off millions of years.
Also, the founders of America followed Christian doctrine when it came to rules on how to conduct ones self. So, although the founders were NOT Christian and believed in separation of Church and State, our nation WAS founded under Christian beliefs.
Now, as for the removal of topics from the text book, I can see why your upset. Our youth need to see that the world has had many important people with many different ideals, thoughts, and beliefs.
Oh hai troll..
ReplyDeleteEVOLUTION IS JUST AS VALID AS FUCKING GRAVITY... you twit. You can deny facts in order to cling to the absurd idea of a magical man in the sky all you want to, but it doesn't make them any less factual. I think it's an overdose of intellectual irresponsibly for you to disregard evolution because you think you found one gap... but continue to believe in a deity that has more gaps than the new Texas school curriculum. /facepalm
Treaty of Tripoli. In no way founded as a Christian nation.
I agree, our youth needs to see that the world has had many important people with many different ideals, thoughts, and beliefs.... too bad the bigots in Texas cut out important minorities and even Thomas Jefferson because he wasn't CHRISTIAN ENOUGH to fit their version of history. So just as their reality is skewed they have now altered their history to be equally fucking skewed.
The US was founded on great Christian values such as owning a fellow human being simply based on the color of his skin. Because after all that's exactly what God intended for both Ham, and his descendants after Ham saw Noah naked.
ReplyDeleteWe owe it to the Texans for giving the cartoonists such delicious material! I particularly like the Chi Trib one. It reminds me of William Buckley's famous line that a conservative is one who stands in front of the train of history yelling "Stop!"
ReplyDeleteIt takes a lot to embarrass a Texan, but that school board of ours has suceeded. Or seceeded. And if you believe there is a scientist alive on God's green Earth that believes evolution is just a theory, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
ReplyDeleteFor the gentleman who says that evolution is a controversial issue; first, dating for geological periods (the kind of stretches of time you are talking about) is done via physics, not chemistry, and even carbon dating,(Often used to place specimens within the holocene era) once the isolation of the carbon is completed (the step which is sensitive to contamination) the actual determination is done via isotope ratios, so we're back to physics. If you wish to be critical of a process, sir, it would behoove you to have a detailed understanding of that process. Unfortunately, it is obvious that your education in scientific matters is only slightly greater than your lack of understanding of fundamental Christian teaching. 30,000 years? I believe the date you're trying to propose is 23 October 4004 BC.
ReplyDeleteLet me point out that You can't empirically prove any theory about creation or evolution. You can offer proofs, but you can't definitively prove that it happened. Unless you can recreate the whole process (ie starting over by getting God to create another world while we watch, or another big bang for us to observe), you can't move the theory into the realm of fact.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when you talk about God, you can't prove or disprove him with physics, that is why we put God into the metaphysical category...
Au contraire mon frere, evolution is clearly proven over and over again in the fossil record. Evolution is only controversial in the minds of people who are unable to see their ancient "holy" books as allegory and metaphor used to express philosophy and not history or fact. Remember we're talking about writers that didn't even know what the sun is just another star or that gravity is what makes the moon revolve around the earth. Here in Texas folks are ready to execute a man convicted of murderer on fairly slim evidence. Then when the accused requests testing the DNA evidence left at the crime scene Texans refuse to consider that evidence prior to execution because they're just that certain. How is it then, that with the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the age of the universe some are willing to ignore all the evidence and claim that they are controversial?
ReplyDeleteI remember reading about that case the other day... didn't he get a phone call just an hour before his execution putting it off? It seems like I also read that there was blood from two of the victims on him and his blood was at the crime scene, I may be wrong... might be a different case completely. lol
ReplyDeleteBut yeah... it is still a good representation of the average texan's outlook!
umm...did you seriously try to cast evolution as a theory because of the big bang theory?...fucking seriously? do you seriously believe that, even though evolution was developed by darwin in the late 18th century, that some crack pot who decided everything exploded and came together to spark one big family (the big bang theory, which was developed in the 20th century) are even remotely related? even though the big bang theory came 200 years later?
ReplyDeletecommon misconception about evolution: it has no beginning, the big bang theory may try to throw itself in with evolution but it's not, darwin even said that evolution is no way to determine where we came from (i.e. we can't use evolution to determine the beginning/origins), but rather using where we definitely have to to determine where we are going (natural selection)
i guess they didn't teach you that in yer neyw purty skewl books (they got pictures and stuff y'all)
Um seriously did you just try to say evolution was in the 18th century and 200 years prior to the Big Bang. Darwinian Evolutionary theory came roughly 75 yrs before the big bang in the 19th century. Various other evolutionary theories floated around before then. If you're going to be high and mighty on your education bend, you might want to pay attention to Darwin's life and Hubble's.
ReplyDeleteAs for those who said Evolution was definitive proof, you lack the same education the poor people in Texas are getting. It's still called a theory and many scientists will tell you the same. They will also tell you it is the most explanatory theory that is widely upheld again and again, but they still call it a theory.
As for it as valid as gravity. Well almost, but still you lack the education too. Gravity is given as a LAW and you can witness it happen easily multiple times a day. Evolution, while excellent as it is, stated above it still only garners the title of THEORY. And again, a good one at that, and again, it is upheld again and again with new discoveries, but still doesn't get the fact or law title.
Want good theological insight on this read Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlitt. Two authors, co-authored many books. Both will tell you that a good Christian will actually uphold Darwinian Evolution (as opposed to Lamarckian, a pre-Darwinian, or anyone else's version) and will do so until a better explanation comes along, if ever that moment happens. There you have good solid Christians telling you to follow Darwin :) if only we can get the folks in Texas to accept that. Oh and whether or not it is the better theory, it's still controversial, sadly.
Let me clarify a statement. Darwinian proposed his theory in the 19th century roughly 75 years before the Big Bang Theory was proposed in the 20th century. I am the same as the above statement. I apologize for not typing that properly. It made sense until I hit post.
ReplyDeleteAs a Texan, an agnostic, a "believer" of evolution (because of my faith in logic), and generally a free-thinker, I will tell you definitively that the textbooks being used in college level courses are extremely left-leaning. For example, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty are described as the first terrorist organization in America. The chapter about the Great Depression in our American History II textbook talks an awful lot about the "redistribution of wealth", actually praises all of the Federal government's meddling in the economy, and chastises FDR for not doing more! It's like reading the Communist Manifesto! If we do not change these textbooks to reflect the truth, instead of Marxist propaganda, we are going to teach an entire generation that the only way they can survive is with the help of a huge, over reaching, Socialist government. The Constitution of the United States is not a "living document" like we learn in Government class. The federal government's powers are clearly enumerated and they do not have the power to do even half of the crazy, power hungry schemes they are involving us in. Let me also remind you Texas-haters out there that if we "bigots" and "rednecks" succeed, we take with us the fifteenth largest economy in the world (thanks to our self-reliance and limited government, I might add) and the U.S. will have a hard time paying back all the money squandered by Bush and Obama without us. You need us because Obama's new USSA socialist empire needs good producers like us to carry failed welfare states like California and Illinois. Have you thanked a Texan today?
ReplyDeleteAn analysis of April 10, 2010 2:40 AM Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteAnon Stated: "Darwinian Evolutionary theory came roughly 75 yrs before the big bang in the 19th century. Various other evolutionary theories floated around before then."
Agreed.
Anon Stated: "It's still called a theory and many scientists will tell you the same. "
This statement seems to predispose that a theory could ever become something greater then a theory within Science. This predisposition is, however, inaccurate. You see, in science a theory is defined in science as "(n) ... A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. 'theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses'"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory
It is worth observing that the definition points out that theories can incorporate facts, laws, etc. A theory cannot become a law, just as a law cannot become a theory. The two things are completely separate and one does not show any more significance over the other. A theory in scientific terms can be more simply defined as an explanation of all observable data at any given point of time. A law on the other hand is simply an observable trend that when certain parameters are met will always be true. A theory in science can not become a law, but it can incorporate laws, which actually leads into the next bit of analysis.
Anon Stated: "Gravity is given as a LAW and you can witness it happen easily multiple times a day."
Actually this is where the lack of understanding possessed by this individual in regards to what a law and a theory are becomes obvious. The Theory of Gravitational Attraction does exist and within it holds the laws of gravity. Where the laws of gravity are merely the observable events (you drop something and it hits the earth), the theory is the explanation of why or how the event occurs.
For More Reading About Theories:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Theory
The same rules apply in the theory of evolution, it is built up of various laws and attempts to explain why their is such a wide diversity of life on this planet. Thus far numerous tests continually confirm the theory of evolution and its laws, it is this very theory that immunologists rely upon when attempting to deal with viral or bacterial strains.
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution's Laws:
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html
Anon Stated: "Oh and whether or not it [Evolution] is the better theory, it's still controversial, sadly."
Its unclear exactly what Anon is referring to when they state that there is still controversy as to what is "the better theory". The issue is that Anon isn't clear as to what exactly other theory exists which could better explain the speciation of life then Evolution. Aside this however, though there may be debate amongst the popular community (the amateur community) there is no true controversy in the scientific community. It can be estimated that 99% of scientists except evolutionary theory.
Source for percentage of scientists which accept evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution As Well As The Fact Of Evolution:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Just_a_theory
An analysis of April 10, 2010 2:40 AM Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteAnon Stated: "Darwinian Evolutionary theory came roughly 75 yrs before the big bang in the 19th century. Various other evolutionary theories floated around before then."
Agreed.
Anon Stated: "It's still called a theory and many scientists will tell you the same. "
This statement seems to predispose that a theory could ever become something greater then a theory within Science. This predisposition is, however, inaccurate. You see, in science a theory is defined in science as "(n) ... A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. 'theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses'"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory
It is worth observing that the definition points out that theories can incorporate facts, laws, etc. A theory cannot become a law, just as a law cannot become a theory. The two things are completely separate and one does not show any more significance over the other. A theory in scientific terms can be more simply defined as an explanation of all observable data at any given point of time. A law on the other hand is simply an observable trend that when certain parameters are met will always be true. A theory in science can not become a law, but it can incorporate laws, which actually leads into the next bit of analysis.
Anon Stated: "Gravity is given as a LAW and you can witness it happen easily multiple times a day."
Actually this is where the lack of understanding possessed by this individual in regards to what a law and a theory are becomes obvious. The Theory of Gravitational Attraction does exist and within it holds the laws of gravity. Where the laws of gravity are merely the observable events (you drop something and it hits the earth), the theory is the explanation of why or how the event occurs.
For More Reading About Theories:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Theory
The same rules apply in the theory of evolution, it is built up of various laws and attempts to explain why their is such a wide diversity of life on this planet. Thus far numerous tests continually confirm the theory of evolution and its laws, it is this very theory that immunologists rely upon when attempting to deal with viral or bacterial strains.
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution's Laws:
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html
Anon Stated: "Oh and whether or not it [Evolution] is the better theory, it's still controversial, sadly."
Its unclear exactly what Anon is referring to when they state that there is still controversy as to what is "the better theory". The issue is that Anon isn't clear as to what exactly other theory exists which could better explain the speciation of life then Evolution. Aside this however, though there may be debate amongst the popular community (the amateur community) there is no true controversy in the scientific community. It can be estimated that 99% of scientists except evolutionary theory.
Source for percentage of scientists which accept evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends
Further Reading on The Theory of Evolution As Well As The Fact Of Evolution:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Just_a_theory
lloyd, as far as most economists are concerned, the new deal was a good system, or at least a lot better than hoover's "do nothing" policy, it's not slanted if it's true, the fact that you don't like that particular move doesn't change the fact that it worked and still works if you apply it correctly
ReplyDeletethe constitution is, by definition, a living document in that we can change it to reflect the needs of society, that's why the founding fathers created the amendment process because they knew that 200 years later, we might not see things the exact way they saw it
and regarding your warning about the U.S. not being able to pay back our debts, have you even looked at the global economy? because if you have, you would know that we have around the 44th highest debt (i last checked in february though i don't imagine that's changed a whole lot) on a per-person basis, lower than about half of europe, you would also know that japan has used the Keynesian economic theory to stimulate their economy, much like what FDR did in the 30s and 40s, and you would know that they are currently gaining stability (in fact i think they're currently doing better than we are) but more importantly, you would know that the U.S. has never defaulted on its debt, how is this possible? because economics is currently a joke, money isn't worth a damn anywhere so basically the national debt is settled by million dollar favors to these different countries that we owe trillions of dollars to (also, the fact that we are supposedly 13 trillion dollars in the whole is also a joke because no one takes into account what other countries owe to us or the fact that we can quite frankly borrow more money and the fiasco continues, that's how we've operated for years and no one's taken any notice until i think one of the big news stations made it such a big deal when the big bad socialists took over and made a deal with karl marx's long lost soul)
also, this move isn't exactly limiting government, you're using a political standpoint to create a base in which to skew a shit ton of historical facts because you don't like some things that went down like jefferson's stance on religion, the "wall of separation" or apparently caesar chavez being famous enough to include into the curriculum along with a half dozen minority figures who made large impacts in texas as well as on the national level
but i guess they thought that country music, mccarthy's justification of a witch hunt and making sure that capitalism was taught as a good thing were all more important than caesar chavez, thurgood marshall and hariet tubman
***that should say "in the hole"
ReplyDeleteFor the anon person who posted this...
ReplyDelete"The US was founded on great Christian values such as owning a fellow human being simply based on the color of his skin. Because after all that's exactly what God intended for both Ham, and his descendants after Ham saw Noah naked."
...did you take into account the different timeperiods/culture clashes?
or that the Old Testament/Torah wasnt written down until the time of Solomon, and before that, was passed on by Oral Tradition? (stories)
or that many of our founding fathers were Diests?