|
What is it we have against intelligent design? Her exact position is "debate is so important, teach them both."
Heck, for all we know, she might not care one way or the other and just prefer kids learn to look at different sides of things before deciding.
Also, multiple theories should be taught until one is a fact, right?
Anyway...my intention isn't to sound hostile. There are good people who mistake ID for "teaching your kids to be southern baptists", which I am totally against - let parents, and the kids themselves, work that one out. But teaching kids that there IS no ID is just as wrong. Hard for them to form their own ideas about science and religion when we start to tell them early that one idea is not worth teaching, and one idea - though equally unprovable - is pretty much accepted as fact.
It's as flawed as teaching global warming. Either way you are representing and influencing religion.
I am cautiously optimistic about my new Veep andidate. I don't know much about her (I see a lot of blogs from some who claim they've never liked her. I guess they've kept a running track of her career for a long time now. Not.), but at first and second blush, she's a stronger conservative than McCain is.
I could never be excited about McCain - why would you ever feed that 'tax cuts for the rich' lie? But if she can steal a few votes and get us a credible national conversation going on tax reform and immigration - and, just maybe, dumb waste-of-money bills (still peeved at Alaska over that highway bill), then she's the right person for the job.
And I'm not too worried about experience. She has executive experience. She's never adopted the wisdom of others as her own. She won her elections fair and square. She shows up to work and intends to get things donw. Obama touts that he is a rookie senator with a committee chair, but his committee hasn't met once since he entered office. He's worked 120 days, and hardly ever votes. Can't stand that guy. Plus, governors make more effective...
There are a number of issues here on teaching intelligent design. The first, is that the way you are using the term "Theory" is not the same way scientists use the same term. In general public vernacular a theory is little better than an idea that has no support with anything other than minimal evidence. In science, a theory is a very broad generalization involving THOUSANDS of observations, tests, etc. Theories in science help us generate hypothesis we can test. A hypothesis is not an "educated guess". It is a prediction about the results of a scientific test based on prior observation, tests, etc.
Now, to really talk about why intelligent design does not have a place in the science classroom, we have to talk about the nature of science. Put a different way, what are the criteria we use to decide if any body of knowledge is more or less scientific relative to any other body of knowledge? When someone says "this is scientific" what are they implying? In point of fact, many things. Science is observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable, fallible, self correcting, and exhibits fecundity. There are other criteria as well.
Science is concerned with solving problems that fit into the criteria I have described. It doesn't care about whether someone believes it is true because science doesn't deal with belief. It solves problems. Put a different way, it doesn't care if it's "true" only if it works. When I design a screwdriver, I don't question whether or not I believe in screwdrivers. I just care if the screwdriver works to solve the problem it was designed to solve. Over time I might come up with a better screwdriver (theory) but I have to judge that on the same criteria. Intelligent design does not meet most of the criteria for what makes something more scientific than something else. It isn't observable. I can't via any method observe God. It isn't testable. There is no way to construct a test that will tell me if there is a God or if God in fact created all things with irreducable complexity (one of the primary conceptual frameworks of intelligent design is that all organisms were created with irreducable complexity). It isn't repeatable as there isn't any way to conduct a test in the first place. It isn't fallible, because you can never disprove the existance of God. Finally it doesn't allow me to solve problems. The reason for that is if I hold intelligent design to be as scientifically valid as any other well tested theory, then I have forced myself into the trap of ultimate causation. When I encounter a problem for which I don't have an explanation, then I can just say "God made it that way". This has already happened in human history many times. Someone gets ill? God is punishing them, instead of they have been infected by microorganisms called bacteria. A flood wipes out a village? God is punishing them, instead of the tectonic plates shifted and created a tsunami.
Science does not free us from religious explanations. There is a host of problems which science can not answer. For example, what is the human soul? What happens to your consciousness after you die? Science can't answer those questions because they do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry. They aren't observable. They aren't testable and so on and so forth. Religion does not have a place in the science classroom because it does not meet many criteria for what makes something science as a way of knowing. Religion is its own way of knowing, but does not meet the criteria for science as the same. Let science focus on what science does. Evolution has given us termendous utility in solving problems in medicine, changes in species over time, changes to our environment and their impact on living creatures and so on and so forth. Computers exist because of scientific inquiry, as do cars, medicine, electric power etc. etc.
The entire debate over Evolution vs Intelligent Design is not about what you believe. It is about their relative scientific strength. In the science classroom, students need to understand evolution and what it's implications are for solving problems. The notion of creationism is a matter of faith and something best left to religious institutions. If Intelligent Design were taught in the science classroom then it would have to be subjected to the same intense scrutiny, testing, and cycles of verification that other science is subjected to. Is that really what creationists want? Do you want God subjected to scientific scrutiny? Be warry what you wish for.
I believe in God. But as a science educator, I understand well that God has no place in the science classroom. Science does not concern itself with the realm of the metaphysical because it doesn't meet the criteria for what science can solve. Similarly, metaphysical explanations do not meet the criteria for a scientific explanation. There is a reason our schools mandate a separation of church and state. As an educator I don't demand my students to become atheists. If you must believe that God is the creator, then perhaps evolution is his mechanism. Why couldn't God have created the world via the mechanism of the big bang and then designed the world to evolve from there? Is God incapable of coming up with an idea as elegant as evolution? I leave that to your faith to decide. As for me and my classroom, I will continue to teach science. Not religion, not faith, not belief. Science is not concerned with those things. I can give faith and belief respect for the realm they deal in, and I expect them to give science the same respect in the realm it deals in.
Horror stories like that are a dime a dozen in Europe. I have severe health problems myself and I have to see my specialist every month. I'm so glad that I'm not in a nation that has socialized medicine.My wife has a friend who moved here from England. Her father has been waiting for over a year for a hernia operation and there is no hope on the horizon for him to get it. She also told us that doctor's won't see pregnant women unless they are a high risk pregnancy so they have to see a midwife. Her husband just had an MRI consult with the Orthopedic doctor and she was shocked that they copuld get in in a few weeks instead of a few months. She says she would never want to see the United States adopt the British style of health care, for what it's worth.Also, I apologize for the snarky remark I made to you. I shouldn't have said that.No offense taken. I was born in Germany; I don't know that I'd rate their health care system as markedly inferior to ours (both seem better than Britain's, from what I've heard), and it's certainly a lot more affordable -- although taxes are of course a lot higher there. Overall, we seem to have shorter life spans in the U.S., and are more often over-medicated and under-provided with preventitive care -- but we have far better specialists here in the U.S. as well. It's all a trade-off.
Yes, because all of Europe is the same, right? Oh and no one in the US has any "horror stories" about the fantastic US health care system... Go America, #1!
No, no health care system in place anywhere in the world is "perfect" and all of them could have improvements implemented (which in all cases would mean more funds would have to be funneled their way).I find it incredibly funny and ironic when a lot of Americans bring up the big tax scare. "We don't want to pay more taxes!" Yet you're already paying these taxes, and often more, but the money is just going to the insurance companies instead. Insurance companies who have the obligation to turn as big a profit as possible to their shareholders...
Let's try and put the two things up against each other.
Let's also say that the amount you'd pay in taxes is the same amount as your current insurance premium (although it'd probably be a percentage cost instead, thus the wealthier you are the higher your actual amount would be, but that's the way it already is with all federal taxes).
With your current insurance company: there's always a chance that your care can be denied or discontinued, it's all based on the whim of the insurance company (who, again, are in it to make money) - and they have a whole slew of "reasons" to deny you coverage (prior health issues etc.).
With universal health care: you are guaranteed treatment no matter who you are or what your prior health issues might have been.
How is the second example not better (do YOU know what'll happen tomorrow and if all of a sudden you're without a job or not able to work and thus pay your insurance premium (which might just have to be changed if you're suddenly disabled because of an accident))?
"But what about all those stories about long waiting periods in a universal health care system I hear all the time?"
I'm not going to say that some tests and procedures might not have longer waiting periods than in the current system, I'm sure some will. Hospitals have to do a bit of triage when it comes to life-threatening situations, that's to be expected. And your scan might be bumped if something suddenly comes up. I'm sure you'd like the same courtesy to be extended to you if YOU were the one who needed the scan immediately to save your life.
I can't speak for every other European country on this topic, but here in Denmark you have a fast treatment guarantee, meaning that if the public hospitals can't schedule a scan/examination/test/operation/whatnot withing a given time limit, you will automatically be referred to a private hospital who can do the procedure within the given time limit. At no extra cost for you, of course.
Which brings me to another point, private hospitals exist over here too, so if you have the monetary means you could always check in to one of those to have whatnot done.
A whole other discussion is the abuse of hospitals/ERs as your primary care physician that apparently is rampant in some areas of the US, which is just, pardon my French, idiotic and something you hardly see here in Europe.
Tell me about it. Since I quit smoking I've put on about 15 pounds. I'm a whopping 142 lbs, give or take!!! I had to buy new pants!!!You were 127 pounds before the weight gain? How tall are you?He's 4'8"... same as Gary Coleman.
An UNDEAD Gary Coleman! How's that for scary?!?
...
An UNDEAD Gary Coleman! How's that for scary?!?
**MUNCH MUNCH** Whatchoo screamin' 'bout Willis?
How does one go about testing theories about macro-evolution? Considering it takes huge amounts of time (from a human lifespan perspective). On the other hand, micro-evolution is pretty clearly established (ask any farmer why he has to keep changing pesticides or ask a nurse why we have to keep getting versions of the flu vaccine).
I know in many science classes time is set aside for giving a historical perspective on the subject material. Why not also give a current perspective? Give students an idea where this material falls into the world today?
In my opinion the reason this has arises as a bigger issue is mainly due to intellectual snobbery. A student mentions something related to ID or religion in the class and then some teacher belittles the student as ignorant. That kind of thing just incites these little political wars.
|
|
How does one go about testing theories about macro-evolution? Considering it takes huge amounts of time (from a human lifespan perspective). On the other hand, micro-evolution is pretty clearly established (ask any farmer why he has to keep changing pesticides or ask a nurse why we have to keep getting versions of the flu vaccine).
I know in many science classes time is set aside for giving a historical perspective on the subject material. Why not also give a current perspective? Give students an idea where this material falls into the world today?
In my opinion the reason this has arises as a bigger issue is mainly due to intellectual snobbery. A student mentions something related to ID or religion in the class and then some teacher belittles the student as ignorant. That kind of thing just incites these little political wars.
I totally agree with you on the intellectual snobbery thing. That is why the nature of science component of that is so important. You need to make it so that students can see that saying that intelligent design is less scientific than evolution is not the same thing as saying there is not a God or that they are ignorant for having faith. It's a continuum between less scientific to more scientific. Understanding how evolution works and what sorts of problems it allows us to solve is not the same thing as becoming an atheist nor does it make a person blasphemous for knowing that it is a real and observable phemonina with tremendous problem solving implications. Knowing how to evaluate various ideas in terms of their relative scientific strength empowers students to understand strong science without sacrificing their beliefs. Students should never be made to feel religion is ignorant. That isn't the case at all. It just isn't very scientific. I think if you empower students with the understanding of science as a way of knowing and how it is different from religion as a way of knowing, you can give them a place where they don't feel their faith is threatened by scientific knowledge and where they understand that not just anything qualifies as scientifically strong. There are lots of ideas out there that are rejected outright as poor science, but Intelligent Design persists because it is tied to a belief structure that is more important to folks than other similarly weak ideas from a scientific perspective.
As to macro evolution, there is evidence that supports it. We do have adaptations that we can observe that clearly happened on a macro scale. For example, the genetic adaptation for sickle cell anemia to sickle cell trait. It's only found in parts of the world where malaria is a problem. In parts of the world where it isn't, the adaptation for sickle cell trait is non existant. The natural selection for that traight would have taken generations to proliferate.
As to macro evolution, there is evidence that supports it. We do have adaptations that we can observe that clearly happened on a macro scale. For example, the genetic adaptation for sickle cell anemia to sickle cell trait. It's only found in parts of the world where malaria is a problem. In parts of the world where it isn't, the adaptation for sickle cell trait is non existant. The natural selection for that traight would have taken generations to proliferate.
Isn't that an example of micro-evolution? I mean people in those areas with sickle cell traits are still ... people (i.e. human). Thus we do not see a divergence of species.
|
|
I've got another one on macro evolution as an example of it. Going on the idea of natural selection, if I were an energy company how much more efficiently would I have to produce energy to outcompete everyone else who makes it. Would it take 5 times as efficient? How about 10? What if I could do it 19 times more efficiently? If I could do that, I would dominate over everyone else. This is what happened with the Mitochondria. There is strong evidence to suggest that the Mitochondria once existed as in individual organism and not just as an organelle in Eukaryotic cells. Specifically they have their own DNA.
Anyway, lets pretend that the entire world was nothing more than a giant soup made up of prokaryotic cells. At some point, two of those prokaryotes gained a symbiotic relationship where one of the prokaryotes became specialized for energy production and the other focused on everything else. By doing that, the energy specialist could produce 38 ATP to 2 ATP in a typical prokaryote. That extra energy caused eukaryotes to outcompete prokaryotes everywhere but very isolated parts of the world (like volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean). As a result, eukaryotes are the dominant type on the planet now. That adaptation and eventual domination would have taken millions of years to occur. Now the Mitochondria is not an independent organism and eukaryote cells can't survive without them. The net effect is species divergence between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Anyway, there are lots of examples of evidence for macro evolution. For example increased skin pigmentation for people living near the equator vs. those further north. That is an adaptation to protect against greater UV radiation at the equator. Those with fairer skin would have been subject to higher incidence of skin cancer and thus less likely to propogate over time then those with more melanin. End result is that you have high melanin production as a naturally selected advantage for those living closer to the equator.
|
|
Isn't that an example of micro-evolution? I mean people in those areas with sickle cell traits are still ... people (i.e. human). Thus we do not see a divergence of species.As to macro evolution, there is evidence that supports it. We do have adaptations that we can observe that clearly happened on a macro scale. For example, the genetic adaptation for sickle cell anemia to sickle cell trait. It's only found in parts of the world where malaria is a problem. In parts of the world where it isn't, the adaptation for sickle cell trait is non existant. The natural selection for that traight would have taken generations to proliferate.
Macro evolution can occur within the same species. Certainly species divergence is a subset of macro evolution, but macro evolution is a general term for evolution that occurs over a long time and on a big scale. For example, golden retrievers are definately unique from say collies. Yet both are still dogs. Obvious divergence has occured but they are still similar enough to be the same genus but different species. Go back a little further in evolutionary time and they probably looked more similar. For an example of macro evolution as species divergence over a VERY long time, consider the example of the Mitochondria I give in the post I made after you asked this.
Macro evolution can occur within the same species. Certainly species divergence is a subset of macro evolution, but macro evolution is a general term for evolution that occurs over a long time and on a big scale. For example, golden retrievers are definately unique from say collies. Yet both are still dogs. Obvious divergence has occured but they are still similar enough to be the same genus but different species. Go back a little further in evolutionary time and they probably looked more similar. For an example of macro evolution as species divergence over a VERY long time, consider the example of the Mitochondria I give in the post I made after you asked this.Isn't that an example of micro-evolution? I mean people in those areas with sickle cell traits are still ... people (i.e. human). Thus we do not see a divergence of species.As to macro evolution, there is evidence that supports it. We do have adaptations that we can observe that clearly happened on a macro scale. For example, the genetic adaptation for sickle cell anemia to sickle cell trait. It's only found in parts of the world where malaria is a problem. In parts of the world where it isn't, the adaptation for sickle cell trait is non existant. The natural selection for that traight would have taken generations to proliferate.
I might be wrong on this but didn't we create the retriever and the collie through breeding, not natural evolution?
Yet both are still dogs. Obvious divergence has occured but they are still similar enough to be the same genus but different species. Go back a little further in evolutionary time and they probably looked more similar. For an example of macro evolution as species divergence over a VERY long time, consider the example of the Mitochondria I give in the post I made after you asked this.I might be wrong on this but didn't we create the retriever and the collie through breeding, not natural evolution?
Also aren't they both still of the same species, just not of the same "breed". Maybe Brent is using the term "species" in a way that I am not familiar with.
|
|
I might be wrong on this but didn't we create the retriever and the collie through breeding, not natural evolution?Macro evolution can occur within the same species. Certainly species divergence is a subset of macro evolution, but macro evolution is a general term for evolution that occurs over a long time and on a big scale. For example, golden retrievers are definately unique from say collies. Yet both are still dogs. Obvious divergence has occured but they are still similar enough to be the same genus but different species. Go back a little further in evolutionary time and they probably looked more similar. For an example of macro evolution as species divergence over a VERY long time, consider the example of the Mitochondria I give in the post I made after you asked this.Isn't that an example of micro-evolution? I mean people in those areas with sickle cell traits are still ... people (i.e. human). Thus we do not see a divergence of species.As to macro evolution, there is evidence that supports it. We do have adaptations that we can observe that clearly happened on a macro scale. For example, the genetic adaptation for sickle cell anemia to sickle cell trait. It's only found in parts of the world where malaria is a problem. In parts of the world where it isn't, the adaptation for sickle cell trait is non existant. The natural selection for that traight would have taken generations to proliferate.
Sorry there. I am not an expert on dog species. I was simply creating an example of divergence in the same basic species (dogs) that created different breeds. As an alternative comparison consider the Alaskan Snow Huskie compared to say a dog in a southern climate that has less hair for insulation against the cold. Undoubtedly we didn't engineer every breed of dog genetically, so there is a comparison of that that illustrates macro evolution. I just happened to pick the wrong two dogs I guess.
|
|
Also aren't they both still of the same species, just not of the same "breed". Maybe Brent is using the term "species" in a way that I am not familiar with.Yet both are still dogs. Obvious divergence has occured but they are still similar enough to be the same genus but different species. Go back a little further in evolutionary time and they probably looked more similar. For an example of macro evolution as species divergence over a VERY long time, consider the example of the Mitochondria I give in the post I made after you asked this.I might be wrong on this but didn't we create the retriever and the collie through breeding, not natural evolution?
No, I used the wrong term. They are the same species (dog), they are different breeds. The point is that certain breeds divereged due to evolutianary adaptation. Dogs in colder climates with more fat and hair for example than those in warmer climates with less hair and fat. It was a spur of the moment example. If there were not macro evolution occuring with dogs in different environments, then all dogs would be exactly the same because we wouldn't have had different types of dogs to breed to together to get the engineered ones.
I made this example to point out that macro evolution is occuring within the same species. You don't have to get true species divergence for macro evolution to happen. I botched it by picking dogs that were bread by us. There are dogs where the differences were adaptations that gave them selective advantages in their environments. That happened over a very long period of time. That is an example of macro evolution.
Ok, I see you are using the macro-evolution to mean evolution over a long time (though the dog thing need not be over a long time, some breeds have been "created" in relatively short time periods due to selective breeding), I was talking more about two distinct groups of the same species becoming so different that they become different species (not just different "breeds" of the same species). I apologize for not being as precise as I intended to be. The science about the version I was meaning is alot less testable.
Speaking as a geologist here, when I was skeptical of so called "macro-evolution" and required a test for it, I checked out the fossil record. It's by no means complete, but there's more than enough there to add another level of support -- especially when relative dates by means of strata (or absolute dates by means of K-Ar, etc.) are included in the picture -- and most especially when a person like me can go out, find the fossils himself, and establish the relative ages -- all without taking someone else's word for any of it. The only way I can see that "macro-evolution" didn't occur is if a trickster God created and arranged the fossil record solely to fool us. (I should add that I found the creationist claim that "there are no transitional fossils" to be rather incomprehensible.)
If the fossil record showed no changes with time, and no increasing complexity with time, etc., that would have pretty well conclusively disproved evolution.
I live in Arizona, so my state would go McCain if he chose Big Bird as his running mate.
I have my doubts about that. Big Bird has been on PBS for a long time, but he has no experience off Sesame Street. If you were talking about Kermit, who has experience both on Sesame Street and the Muppet Show, not to mention the Muppet movies, it might be a different story. Not to mention the fact that Big Bird's "close" relationship with Snuffleupagus could alienate some of McCain's Republican supporters.
I would have suggested the Swedish Chef as a running mate, if only he were a natural-born citizen.
Yes, she is sexually attractive. We have recognized.
Now can we get past that to discuss her intelligence, capabilities, experience, and (unfortunately for me) political beliefs.
Nah. Let's talk about her boobies. Those man suits cover them all up!
McCain should not have picked the VP candidate that he wanted to screw the most;
That would be contrary to the "drill here, drill now" philosophy;).
|
I live in Arizona, so my state would go McCain if he chose Big Bird as his running mate.I have my doubts about that. Big Bird has been on PBS for a long time, but he has no experience off Sesame Street. If you were talking about Kermit, who has experience both on Sesame Street and the Muppet Show, not to mention the Muppet movies, it might be a different story. Not to mention the fact that Big Bird's "close" relationship with Snuffleupagus could alienate some of McCain's Republican supporters.
I would have suggested the Swedish Chef as a running mate, if only he were a natural-born citizen.
Typical left-wing smear tactics. The fact is BB served two terms as mayor of Sesame Street and so has MORE executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined. Androcles Snuffleupagus is an upstanding greek citizen and living so close to a foreigner gives BB solid foreign policy experience. In short, Big Bird is a fantastic choice as John McCain's running mate.
McCain/Bird '08
|
Ok, I see you are using the macro-evolution to mean evolution over a long time (though the dog thing need not be over a long time, some breeds have been "created" in relatively short time periods due to selective breeding), I was talking more about two distinct groups of the same species becoming so different that they become different species (not just different "breeds" of the same species). I apologize for not being as precise as I intended to be. The science about the version I was meaning is alot less testable.
How about hyraxes? They are African rock-climbing animals the size of gophers - however, their closest relatives are elephants.
I live in Arizona, so my state would go McCain if he chose Big Bird as his running mate.I have my doubts about that. Big Bird has been on PBS for a long time, but he has no experience off Sesame Street. If you were talking about Kermit, who has experience both on Sesame Street and the Muppet Show, not to mention the Muppet movies, it might be a different story. Not to mention the fact that Big Bird's "close" relationship with Snuffleupagus could alienate some of McCain's Republican supporters.
I would have suggested the Swedish Chef as a running mate, if only he were a natural-born citizen.
Wait a minute. Im pretty sure Big Bird has been to China and Japan so he's got foreign policy nailed and it seems like he was on the road whistle stop campaigning during Follow that Bird. And I think there was a very special episode where Big Bird went to the Doctor, so he can clear the whole socialized medicine problem up. Im also pretty sure he's been to Grouchland...take from that what you will.
Greetings,
I am an Alaskan resident working at a TV station in Anchorage (Wasilla is considered a bedroom community to Anchorage, or at least was, fastest growing town in the state last I heard) and one of the reporters mentioned that one of our states 'ol boy politicos told him off the record something along the lines of 'Don't let her demeanor or experience fool you, Sarah Palin is a politician through and through, and damn good at it too.' this was during the gubernatorial elections.
She may be under investigation but I've a feeling she'll come out none the worse for wear. She's still one of the most popular governors the state has seen (my democratic friends like her and I prefer her over Knolls, her Dem opponent, and I'm a left leaner). She has a 'home town' feel that will appeal to many voters, white middle class and working class people, fence sitting female voters, and so on. I honestly think she's a good choice all things considered, and a surprising choice, the kind of surprising choice that throws the opposition off kilter. Granted there have been rumors of the possibility here in Alaska since the primaries began.
What irks me about this is that while I like Palin, I plan on voting for Obama, my state is almost guaranteed to vote for Palin. She's incredibly popular amongst the citizens and has caused a stir with her beliefs in cleaning up the political state here. Because of the damned electoral college however, my vote, that big old touted American right of mine, is going to mean absolutely jack. Squat. Nil. Zilch. I'll do it anyway because I'm stubborn but I strongly want to find the spirit of everyone who was involved in creating the electoral college and sealing them up in a pocket dimension where they are forced to watch Tom Green and Will Farrel get greased up and do horrible kinky stuff to one another and the poor trapped viewers and I'll have absolutely no remorse. None. Because they've effectively made my vote useless should I live in a where the majority is opposed to my personal politics.
Anywho, I like Palin... ish. She's done great things for my State and her as VP might do even better things. But there's a lot of her politics I dislike as well. But then I'm a social lefty in a socially right leaning state. *sigh*
RPG Superstar 2013
|
My blood runs cold at how easily Americans rationalise living in a theocracy. The red peril and the yellow peril are nowhere near as scary as the fundamentalist christian peril, for it is a cancer of the mind that is ruining your fabulous country from within.
And people accuse us of narcissism and hate. Do any of you people (meaning the kind of person to throw that comment out in a public forum) ever listen to yourselves? Is there a lower and more personal insult than "there's no greater danger to the world than YOU PEOPLE"?
I don't recall ever once saying anything about a theocracy. Moreover, what peril is the world in from fundamentalist Christians? Are we well-known for our rape rooms and for flying planes into buildings (this is not a remark about all islam - don't go there. This is a remark on something Christians don't do). Have we instituted governments viable only with the mass exectution of the poor and dissident? Have we stockpiled food in our government's warehouses and refused to give it away just because it came from the East? Has a group of Christians ever soaked up a community's resources and watched them die from starvation and disease? And among the world's citizens, what block of people spend the most time, money and energy combatting such real evils?
What an irritating, hateful and ignorant comment.
Well, I have no interest in insulting anyone, unlike you, sir. I will only tell you that as a dangerous fundamentalist Christian, I have not killed a single Jew, nor have I locked poor people up in 'free' housing projects that perpetuate poverty, nor have I looked the other way while despots raped and murdered whomever they pleased. And while those things occur in our world, I hardly think of myself as an evil of any significance.
I'll pray that whatever hate you arbitrarily feel for those who agree with me will subside for just long enough for you to think before you post a response. After all, there might be a few bad examples of Christianity out there - I am too often one of them - but surely whatever happened to make you hate Christians stems from either an atypical experience, or mindless self-importance.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Oh...I would be grateful for any examples of evidence that warrant teaching evolution in schools as more scientific thant ID.
A recent claim is that ID is teaching about God and Creation, but it isn't necessarily. You can teach about the complexity of the cell structure and point out we are still investigating, but that it is impossible for the cell to have evolved without design behind it.
You don't have to teach God made the cell on the fourth day. Just teach the science of the cell and offer ID as a possible explanation. Also, don't exclude scientists that question or downright oppose modern evolutionary theory, which stands on the shoulders of poor science, and is perpetuated by massaging data and outcome based research. Hoaxes, manipulated dates, and conjecture are the history of evolutionary theory. What gies it the credibility that other explanations lack?
What irks me about this is that while I like Palin, I plan on voting for Obama, my state is almost guaranteed to vote for Palin. She's incredibly popular amongst the citizens and has caused a stir with her beliefs in cleaning up the political state here. Because of the damned electoral college however, my vote, that big old touted American right of mine, is going to mean absolutely jack. Squat. Nil. Zilch.
If it makes you feel any better Devil I have recently decided (more than likely) to vote McCain despite being a Libertarian (don't get me started again on Bob Barr)so my vote will be swept up in the electorate votes of Massachusetts. MA is solidly, probably more than any state, going to Obama. So we can both feel good that our vote was traded :)
|
If it makes you feel any better Devil I have recently decided (more than likely) to vote McCain despite being a Libertarian (don't get me started again on Bob Barr)so my vote will be swept up in the electorate votes of Massachusetts. MA is solidly, probably more than any state, going to Obama. So we can both feel good that our vote was traded :)
I am in NY.
I would not sell my vote to Obama. (Not to mention refusing to vote for Hillary.)I will still show up and pull the levers. Nobody and nothing will stop me from exercising my right to vote until they first stop me from breathing.
I still wish they would get rid of the Electoral College. Ah well. Might as well wish that church and state would truly remain separate. Still, despite my complaints, I'd rather live here than anywhere else. Except maybe mars, that would be kind of cool, own a patch of land on mars after it gets all terraformed... now I just need to live for another hundred years or so and see terraforming actually happen and then ride the first shuttle in, live another few hundred years and... hmmm, in order for this all to occur I am going to need to find that fountain of eternal life, youth, whatever thingy, drink from that. Then I'll need to start... oh, that's right, no sleep and out of coffee, I'll stop rambling now.
|
|
What irks me about this is that while I like Palin, I plan on voting for Obama, my state is almost guaranteed to vote for Palin. She's incredibly popular amongst the citizens and has caused a stir with her beliefs in cleaning up the political state here. Because of the damned electoral college however, my vote, that big old touted American right of mine, is going to mean absolutely jack.
don't worry, your one alaskan vote for obama that doesn't mean jack will be more than offsett by the millions of mccain votes in california that don't mean jack ;)
On another vote, here's that Candidate that will really change the face of America and clean up this country! He has my vote!
|
|
I still wish they would get rid of the Electoral College.
Having lived as a conservative Republican in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia, I understand the frustration of being in the minority when your state picks a presidential candidate.
That being said, the Electoral college is not a bad idea. I personally prefer living in a Republic as opposed to living in a direct democracy. I think its cool that each state maintains a measure of its own identity and as a state has a say in picking our leaders. I've lived all over the country, east to west, and the concerns of one part are not the same as the concerns of another. I would dislike living in a country where the three or four main urban areas dictated policy to everyone.
|
|
I still wish they would get rid of the Electoral College.Having lived as a conservative Republican in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia, I understand the frustration of being in the minority when your state picks a presidential candidate.
That being said, the Electoral college is not a bad idea. I personally prefer living in a Republic as opposed to living in a direct democracy. I think its cool that each state maintains a measure of its own identity and as a state has a say in picking our leaders. I've lived all over the country, east to west, and the concerns of one part are not the same as the concerns of another. I would dislike living in a country where the three or four main urban areas dictated policy to everyone.
Exactly, the Electoral College was designed to ensure that the president represented the majority of the country, not just the majority of it's people.
My blood runs cold at how easily Americans rationalise living in a theocracy. The red peril and the yellow peril are nowhere near as scary as the fundamentalist christian peril, for it is a cancer of the mind that is ruining your fabulous country from within.And people accuse us of narcissism and hate. Do any of you people (meaning the kind of person to throw that comment out in a public forum) ever listen to yourselves? Is there a lower and more personal insult than "there's no greater danger to the world than YOU PEOPLE"?
I don't recall ever once saying anything about a theocracy. Moreover, what peril is the world in from fundamentalist Christians? Are we well-known for our rape rooms and for flying planes into buildings (this is not a remark about all islam - don't go there. This is a remark on something Christians don't do). Have we instituted governments viable only with the mass exectution of the poor and dissident? Have we stockpiled food in our government's warehouses and refused to give it away just because it came from the East? Has a group of Christians ever soaked up a community's resources and watched them die from starvation and disease? And among the world's citizens, what block of people spend the most time, money and energy combatting such real
What an irritating, hateful and ignorant comment.
Well, I have no interest in insulting anyone, unlike you, sir. I will only tell you that as a dangerous fundamentalist Christian, I have not killed a single Jew, nor have I locked poor people up in 'free' housing projects that perpetuate poverty, nor have I looked the other way while despots raped and murdered whomever they pleased. And while those things occur in our world, I hardly think of myself as an evil of any significance.
I'll pray that whatever hate you arbitrarily feel for those who agree with me will subside for just long enough for you to think before you post a response. After all, there might be a few bad examples of...
You're absolutely right. However, this is primarily a left-wing website and you have to expect this. It's the way the far left thinks and acts. You just have to learn to accept it and laugh at it.
|
|
Oh...I would be grateful for any examples of evidence that warrant teaching evolution in schools as more scientific thant ID.
A recent claim is that ID is teaching about God and Creation, but it isn't necessarily. You can teach about the complexity of the cell structure and point out we are still investigating, but that it is impossible for the cell to have evolved without design behind it.
You don't have to teach God made the cell on the fourth day. Just teach the science of the cell and offer ID as a possible explanation. Also, don't exclude scientists that question or downright oppose modern evolutionary theory, which stands on the shoulders of poor science, and is perpetuated by massaging data and outcome based research. Hoaxes, manipulated dates, and conjecture are the history of evolutionary theory. What gies it the credibility that other explanations lack?
You have no evidence for that claim. The notion of intelligent design relies on a "designer". If you want to call that God or Elminster, it really isn't relevant. ID is not a strong scientific explanation. It is a reasonable metaphysical one. Science simply does not deal in the supernatural or metaphysical. As such ID has no place in a science classroom. When subjected to scientific inquiry and testing ID is so full of holes that it barely qualifies as pseudo science. The so called "scientists" who support ID do so because it fits with their beliefs and not science as a whole. Put a different way they are casting aside their scientific judgement in favor of their beliefs, which as I have explained is not the realm of scientific inquiry. Few Scientific Theories have been subjected to as much scrutiny, testing, and effort to discredit as Evolution. It has consistently held up under every test. More importantly it allows us to solve problems, ask more questions, and gain a picture of the interrelationships of living organisms. ID does none of those things. You can allow your religious beliefs to cloud your judgement, but it does not change the fact that ID does not belong in the science classroom. Science is not concerned with religion. Religious questions are beyond the realm or even interest of science to answer. ID is not a scientific explanation. Ergo, it should not be taught as science.
|
|
All she said was that Creationism (as it relates to the Bible) could be taught alongside Evolution. She said, in essence, teach both together and let the kids debate it in class.
Let the kids debate it? Ha! I think kids should be informed and allowed to make up their own minds, but every "classroom debate" I've ever witnessed either got McLaughlin Group ugly really quickly, or stultifyingly boring. Either way, no one ever said anything enlightening or well-reasoned and I never walked away with a better understanding of what was being debated or a higher opinion of the debaters.
P.S. What's with the caps? Are Creation and Evolution different from creating and evolving? Should I be pissed about caps, or is my Lit Theory 101 training putting a bee up my nose?
|
|
Today the Obama campaign is proud to announce our vision of change for the Pro-Obama Dungeons and Dragons crowd. I the interest of change and growing our economy, we will ask Congress to pass a bill requireing everyone to switch over to Fourth Edition by April. We hope that this will help to heal the rift between nubes and grognards and allow us to establish a time table to pull our troops out of the edition wars. In order to mitigate the financial difficulty that this may cause, you will be able to trade in your 3.5 and Pathfinder books for a 20% discount on Fourth Edition products. More details will be 4th coming. Thank you.
It's the way the far left thinks and acts. You just have to learn to accept it and laugh at it.
Careful Gary; your bigotry is showing. Again.
How very Christian of you.
Well, I have no interest in insulting anyone, unlike you, sir. I will only tell you that as a dangerous fundamentalist Christian, I have not killed a single Jew, nor have I locked poor people up in 'free' housing projects that perpetuate poverty, nor have I looked the other way while despots raped and murdered whomever they pleased. And while those things occur in our world, I hardly think of myself as an evil of any significance.
No one *EVER* thinks of themselves as evil...surely you understand that?
The fact that religion has often been used as a tool of bigotry and violence is a matter of historic record. Would you stand aside and let horrible things be done in the name of your god? I have no idea. But many, many people have.
It's the way the far left thinks and acts. You just have to learn to accept it and laugh at it.Careful Gary; your bigotry is showing. Again.
How very Christian of you.
Did you read my post? Of course not. Far Left. Not mainstream left. Also, I'm not religious so you're barking up the wrong tree with me. Please keep your stupid opinions to yourself.
Exactly, the Electoral College was designed to ensure that the president represented the majority of the country, not just the majority of it's people.
There is no fundamental difference between the country and its people, nor should we have one in the election of the president. Regionalism is represented quite well in the legislature, small states well protected in the Senate. As representative of the nation at large, the president should be elected by direct popular vote rather than have voters routinely disenfranchised, campaigns encouraged to focus on battleground swing states, and minority-vote presidents.
The institution of the electoral college is archaic and unnecessary.|
|
Exactly, the Electoral College was designed to ensure that the president represented the majority of the country, not just the majority of it's people.There is no fundamental difference between the country and its people, nor should we have one in the election of the president. Regionalism is represented quite well in the legislature, small states well protected in the Senate. As representative of the nation at large, the president should be elected by direct popular vote rather than have voters routinely disenfranchised, campaigns encouraged to focus on battleground swing states, and minority-vote presidents.
The institution of the electoral college is archaic and unnecessary.
The Electoral College is not perfect, but as Wicht pointed out, without it voters would be even more disenfranchised unless they live in New York and Los Angeles. With the Electoral College the voice of the farmer in Witchita is just as strong as the voice of the movie producer in Los Angeles or the investment banker in New York. As you suggested the President is the representative of the entire country, which is why the entire country should have a say in his/her election. The Republican voice is much more spread out in this country than the Democrat voice, which is positioned in the major urban centers of the country.
One way of making the Electoral College less regional than it is now is to follow a proposal that Republicans in California proposed, which is to apportion electoral votes based on how the district votes. That way, using California as an example, the Democrats would get 2 electroral votes for winning the state and then the other 50 would be divided by how each congressional district voted. So if the split was 70%-30% in California, the Democrat candidate would get 37 total electoral votes from California and the Republican would get 15. So far Democrats have opposed this move. That way we could more fully address the ideas of the president being the representative of the people, and still preserve the regionalism that the Founding Fathers believed was so important.
|
|
Exactly, the Electoral College was designed to ensure that the president represented the majority of the country, not just the majority of it's people.There is no fundamental difference between the country and its people, nor should we have one in the election of the president. Regionalism is represented quite well in the legislature, small states well protected in the Senate. As representative of the nation at large, the president should be elected by direct popular vote rather than have voters routinely disenfranchised, campaigns encouraged to focus on battleground swing states, and minority-vote presidents.
The institution of the electoral college is archaic and unnecessary.The Electoral College is not perfect, but as Wicht pointed out, without it voters would be even more disenfranchised unless they live in New York and Los Angeles. With the Electoral College the voice of the farmer in Witchita is just as strong as the voice of the movie producer in Los Angeles or the investment banker in New York. As you suggested the President is the representative of the entire country, which is why the entire country should have a say in his/her election. The Republican voice is much more spread out in this country than the Democrat voice, which is positioned in the major urban centers of the country.
One way of making the Electoral College less regional than it is now is to follow a proposal that Republicans in California proposed, which is to apportion electoral votes based on how the district votes. That way, using California as an example, the Democrats would get 2 electroral votes for winning the state and then the other 50 would be divided by how each congressional district voted. So if the split was 70%-30% in California, the Democrat candidate would get 37 total electoral votes from California and the Republican would get 15. So far Democrats have opposed this move. That way we could more fully address the ideas of the president being the...
David,
Sorry, but that doesn't actually make sense. If the vote is straight popular vote then each vote is exactly equal. At the moment, that Wichita farmer is MORE important than the banker or movie producer because his state has a disproportionate effect on the race given how close it is, and he has a disproportionate effect on the state's vote, give how comparatively small it is.Popular vote means 1 person gets one vote and that vote is counted once. How is that not fairer than some people's votes count for 1.02 votes because of where they live?
EDIT: What does it matter if the Republican vote is more spread out? If there are more Republican votes you win, and if not you don't. Why should where you live matter in that?
|
|
The Electoral College is not perfect, but as Wicht pointed out, without it voters would be even more disenfranchised unless they live in New York and Los Angeles. With the Electoral College the voice of the farmer in Witchita is just as strong as the voice of the movie producer in Los Angeles or the investment banker in New York. As you suggested the President is the representative of the entire country, which is why the entire country should have a say in his/her election. The Republican voice is much more spread out in this country than the Democrat voice, which is positioned in the major urban centers of the country.
One way of making the Electoral College less regional than it is now is to follow a proposal that Republicans in California proposed, which is to apportion electoral votes based on how the district votes. That way, using California as an example, the Democrats would get 2 electroral votes for winning the state and then the other 50 would be divided by how each congressional district voted. So if the split was 70%-30% in California, the Democrat candidate would get 37 total electoral votes from California and the Republican would get 15. So far Democrats have opposed this move. That way we could more fully address the ideas of the president being the representative of the people, and still preserve the regionalism that the Founding Fathers believed was so important.
Actually . . . no.
Neither of those is accurate.The first problem is that each state gets two electoral votes no matter its size. This means that low population states have significantly more electoral power than high population states.
The second problem is that not every electoral vote represents the same number of people. A congressman in one of the high population states represents a lot more people than the lone congressman from one of the low population states. So even if you resolved the issue of the per state electoral votes, there would still be a disparity in the number each state gets, and that would create an imbalance. This would be even more true under a system that allocates such electoral votes by district rather than by overall percentage.
A change would have to address both issues, by removing the electors for each state (senator), and significantly increasing the number of electors by population (congressman). It would also have to find a resolution to the question of allocating such electoral votes by district or by percentage won in each state.
Did you read my post? Of course not. Far Left. Not mainstream left. Also, I'm not religious so you're barking up the wrong tree with me. Please keep your stupid opinions to yourself.
It's the way the far left thinks and acts. You just have to learn to accept it and laugh at it.Careful Gary; your bigotry is showing. Again.
How very Christian of you.
(1) Thank you for calling me stupid. Good luck with that.
(2) Calling it "far left" isn't any better than calling it "left." Or "Jewish" or "Christian." You're still drawing conclusions about specific individuals on this thread based on your understanding of a behavior of a group. That is what we call bigotry. I'm sorry if you don't like the definition.
Exactly, the Electoral College was designed to ensure that the president represented the majority of the country, not just the majority of it's people.There is no fundamental difference between the country and its people, nor should we have one in the election of the president. Regionalism is represented quite well in the legislature, small states well protected in the Senate. As representative of the nation at large, the president should be elected by direct popular vote rather than have voters routinely disenfranchised, campaigns encouraged to focus on battleground swing states, and minority-vote presidents.
The institution of the electoral college is archaic and unnecessary.The Electoral College is not perfect, but as Wicht pointed out, without it voters would be even more disenfranchised unless they live in New York and Los Angeles. With the Electoral College the voice of the farmer in Witchita is just as strong as the voice of the movie producer in Los Angeles or the investment banker in New York. As you suggested the President is the representative of the entire country, which is why the entire country should have a say in his/her election. The Republican voice is much more spread out in this country than the Democrat voice, which is positioned in the major urban centers of the country.
One way of making the Electoral College less regional than it is now is to follow a proposal that Republicans in California proposed, which is to apportion electoral votes based on how the district votes. That way, using California as an example, the Democrats would get 2 electroral votes for winning the state and then the other 50 would be divided by how each congressional district voted. So if the split was 70%-30% in California, the Democrat candidate would get 37 total electoral votes from California and the Republican would get 15. So far Democrats have opposed this move. That way we could more fully address the ideas of the president being the...
That seems to lend itself to Gerrymandering, no?
|
|
You're still drawing conclusions about specific individuals on this thread based on your understanding of a behavior of a group. That is what we call bigotry. I'm sorry if you don't like the definition.
Heh. You are the one who compared Christians to Bigots just a bit ago right?
Bit of a kettle thing you have going on there perhaps.
Maybe I'm just coming back to this thread late...but the most common criticism I've heard of the electoral college is its winner-take-all nature, resulting in situations like the one we had in 2000, where the popular vote went to Gore but the election went to Bush. I don't remember the specifics, but I think this has happened at least once before (Dewey/Truman? can't be bothered to look it up). My point is, small states getting a slightly larger say than they would based on population alone doesn't seem like the real problem here.
Assuming you want to preserve the "weighted" nature of the electoral college without the winner-take-all nature, why not just use a popular vote, but weight the votes from small population states slightly?
I guess I don't see why the current structure is needed to address the small pop state issue (putting aside whether you think it needs to be addressed).
You're still drawing conclusions about specific individuals on this thread based on your understanding of a behavior of a group. That is what we call bigotry. I'm sorry if you don't like the definition.
Heh. You are the one who compared Christians to Bigots just a bit ago right?
Bit of a kettle thing you have going on there perhaps.
Actually: No, I didn't. I pointed out that bigotry isn't in accordance with the tenants of Christianity. Was I mistaken?
Edit: The "how very Christian" statement was sarcasm; apparently that wasn't clear. I wrote it attempting to show that Mr. Dee was being a hypocrite. But since he apparently isn't Christian, the point is moot.
And even if my statement had been literal, why would it matter? If the kettle is black, what difference does the color of the pot make?
|
|
Maybe I'm just coming back to this thread late...but the most common criticism I've heard of the electoral college is its winner-take-all nature, resulting in situations like the one we had in 2000, where the popular vote went to Gore but the election went to Bush. I don't remember the specifics, but I think this has happened at least once before (Dewey/Truman? can't be bothered to look it up). My point is, small states getting a slightly larger say than they would based on population alone doesn't seem like the real problem here.
Assuming you want to preserve the "weighted" nature of the electoral college without the winner-take-all nature, why not just use a popular vote, but weight the votes from small population states slightly?
I guess I don't see why the current structure is needed to address the small pop state issue (putting aside whether you think it needs to be addressed).
Well, we have computers now, not delegates on horseback.
I think it's time to start thinking about scrapping the whole electoral college. Who's with me?
Maybe I'm just coming back to this thread late...but the most common criticism I've heard of the electoral college is its winner-take-all nature, resulting in situations like the one we had in 2000, where the popular vote went to Gore but the election went to Bush. I don't remember the specifics, but I think this has happened at least once before (Dewey/Truman? can't be bothered to look it up). My point is, small states getting a slightly larger say than they would based on population alone doesn't seem like the real problem here.
Assuming you want to preserve the "weighted" nature of the electoral college without the winner-take-all nature, why not just use a popular vote, but weight the votes from small population states slightly?
I guess I don't see why the current structure is needed to address the small pop state issue (putting aside whether you think it needs to be addressed).
Well, we have computers now, not delegates on horseback.
I think it's time to start thinking about scrapping the whole electoral college. Who's with me?
Well, since you asked, I think this would be a good idea, if for no other reason than making things more democratic. We do pay a lot of lip service, after all. That being said, even if you support the electoral college, I think improvements could be made. It seems like the whole issue is a political mess, with no one wanting to make any moves lest the other side jump with accusations of trying to rig the system. So we limp on with an archaic compromise (where have I heard *that* before?) :)