|
What?!?! I'm the villian of the Paizo boards.
Pfah! You hardly qualify as the villain of the boards anymore. You're more like the evil lieutenant that is dispatched somewhere in the third or fourth book of the AP.
...and Callous Jack is the grotesque leper that disgusts everyone.
Hey! Golems can't get leprosy!
What?!?! I'm the villian of the Paizo boards.Pfah! You hardly qualify as the villain of the boards anymore. You're more like the evil lieutenant that is dispatched somewhere in the third or fourth book of the AP.
Wow Sebastian, Callous is basically saying you are the little pony on the block now and no longer a Sith Lord.
|
Thank you for the comic relief Sebast - the Jester of the Paizo boards.What?!?! I'm the villian of the Paizo boards. Heathy's the hero of the people, CourtFool is the jester, and Callous Jack is the grotesque leper that disgusts everyone.
I recommend buying a program. You can't follow the show if you don't have a program.
I'm a waaaay worster enemy then nubmer four.
The closest Sebastian comes to a Sith Lord is that he reminds me of the annoying kid playing Anakin in TPM.
doh!
Disclaimer: I don't like Obama. For that matter, I don't like McCain either. My motto is, "George Washington for president."
Wow .... 1.4 million bucks for being in office for 10 days. He hasn't done anything yet, and he definitely hadn't done anything when they put his name on the list. I'll take $1.4 million for doing nothing any day.
And as for nuclear disarmament? We have something approaching peace over a large amount of the world BECAUSE the nukes make the politicians too scared to take each other on. Get rid of them, and the developed nations will be at each other's throats again before you could say "unjustified arrogance."
The history of humanity proves that the only way to ensure peace is the possibility of mutually assured destruction. Going against nukes should provide the "Nobel War Prize," IMO.
Actually, the history of humanity proves that none of our attempts have found a way to ensure peace. You think MAD ensures peace? Tell that to those that get hit by American Cruise Missiles. Tell that to the civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan.
You don't create peace by threatening someone.
There is no other way to create peace, my friend. The Iraqis and Afghans were able to be attacked precisely because they have no big stick to flourish.
Do you really think there wouldn't have been a conventional war between the U.S. and Soviet Union long ago if it weren't for the fact that if they came to blows, they knew that it would be the end of the world, literally?
I would say that's a logical argument for any nation (particularly Iran) to develop nukes.
I would say that's a logical argument for any nation (particularly Iran) to develop nukes.
It's not, though, except under certain circumstances.
It doesn't make sense to spend money on nukes if someone else will use their own for you. Most of Europe, therefore, has no reason to whip up nukes even if they have the capacity and know-how to do it.
It doesn't make sense for pauper countries with relatively minor enemies and little likelihood of being invaded by a bigger power to spend the money on nukes. So, nukes make no sense for places like Guatemala.
But in an environment in which large countries invade small ones because of grievances, then you better believe it makes sense to spend on nuclear weapons. That's why the pre-emption doctrine that the Bush administration peddled as a reason to attack Iraq was not a good idea in the long term. It definitely showed places like North Korea and Iran, places that could conceivably make a nuke even at high cost, that they may need one to stave off unilateral, pre-emptive invasion.
The closest Sebastian comes to a Sith Lord is that he reminds me of the annoying kid playing Anakin in TPM.
Wow Sebastian, Callous is basically saying you are the little pony on the block now and no longer a Sith Lord.
At least I'm not comparable to Jar Jar Binks.
How Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 12 days (for dummies):
January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.
January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)
January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
January 25: Skipped church.
January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.
January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
January 31: Took the day off.
February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.
I would say that's a logical argument for any nation (particularly Iran) to develop nukes.It's not, though, except under certain circumstances.
It doesn't make sense to spend money on nukes if someone else will use their own for you. Most of Europe, therefore, has no reason to whip up nukes even if they have the capacity and know-how to do it.
It doesn't make sense for pauper countries with relatively minor enemies and little likelihood of being invaded by a bigger power to spend the money on nukes. So, nukes make no sense for places like Guatemala.
But in an environment in which large countries invade small ones because of grievances, then you better believe it makes sense to spend on nuclear weapons. That's why the pre-emption doctrine that the Bush administration peddled as a reason to attack Iraq was not a good idea in the long term. It definitely showed places like North Korea and Iran, places that could conceivably make a nuke even at high cost, that they may need one to stave off unilateral, pre-emptive invasion.
I tend to agree. I would prefer that Iran did not have nukes, but in the era of pre-emptive invasion our own policies have worsened the issue of proliferation. If Georgia, for example, had even a credible threat of nuclear retaliation it's a safe bet that Russia would have let them alone. Non proliferation is increasingly a pipe dream at this point. We will probably see some level of nuclear exchange in our life times.
Disclaimer: I like President Obama.
From a reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"So, it’s a bad thing that the world is so optimistic about America’s role as a world leader with Obama as President that the Nobel Committee gave him the Peace Prize? Really? So bad he should turn down the honor? Really? Have we gotten so cynical in our views that when a segment of the world shows optimism toward our country, we think the best reaction is to double down on our cynicism?"
I think it's silly to be mad about it. Some Scandinavians want to honor our president? USA! USA! USA! We're #1! :-P
I mean, seriously, how does it hurt us to have our president win the Nobel Peace Prize? Is it early? Sure... but it's not up to him, or us, it's up to those wacky Norwegians.
As for turning it down?
http://washingtonindependent.com/63375/its-not-the-achievements-its-the-jou rney-itself
Help President Obama win the Heisman Trophy!!!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Next-h elp-Obama-win-the-Heisman-63851657.html#
|
I would say that's a logical argument for any nation (particularly Iran) to develop nukes.
Well, look at the recent history.
Iraq, sits around under a no-fly-zone, unable to do anything to anyone, does not have WMDs (despite having been sold the components, apparently lacking the technical know-how or will to assemble them, leading to incredible frustration on the part of the executives who *know* they sold them the stuff) gets it's butt kicked for no real reason other than to prove that we could (since we know they had nothing to do with 9/11, being hated enemies of that branch of Islam, who are now gloriously rewarded for 9/11 by being handed Iraq, the only sizable Middle Eastern state other than Turkey, and, arguably, Jordan, to hold out against them, on a silver platter).
North Korea, makes all sorts of crazy apocalyptic threats, launches missiles over US allies, and detonates a nuke to prove that they can, and gets strenuously avoided and downplayed by the US.
Saudi Arabia, which gave us Osama bin Laden, 15 of the 19 hijackers and all of the funding for al-Qaeda, also has nukes ('cause we gave them to them, and continued giving nuclear technology to them *after 9/11*), and is politely hand-held throughout the entire war. Wouldn't want to piss off the guys whose oil billions actually funded it, after all.
If you were Iran, would you rather be Iraq or North Korea? Real threats are ignored, while America proves it's greatness by slaying imaginary dragons (and, breathtakingly, rewards terrorism in doing so).
But it's hardly the first time we've rewarded terror. The Arms-for-Hostages deal taught Iran that we'll happily capitulate to terror for short-term political gain. And now we've done it again, removing the secular government of Iraq that had kept them oppressed and out of power for decades, to hand it to the same sect whose extremists blew up the World Trade Center. If I lived in Israel, I'd be scared to death of US intervention in the region, if we're going to keep toppling secular regimes and replacing them with with the sect dominated by nations under Shaira law and full of 'death-to-Israel' hardcore extremists.
The lesson of the last decade? Get nukes, as fast as you can, or you will be squashed like a bug.
|
|
That's a bit incorrect. He was nominated after 12 days. He won after 9 months. But the thawing effect on international diplomacy is harder to quantify than a snarky timeline is able to delineate.
Okay, but wouldn't you agree that the post is correct in pointing out that when he was nominated, twelve days after assuming office, that he had no achievements to speak of? And that after nine monthes in office, the only real thing that he has done to thaw international relations is, in essence, annonce that he is not George W, Bush? There are still Amerian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, and President Obama hasn't changd course on any other major policy issue involving international relations. So, clearly, twelve days or nine months, it was way too early to award him the Noble Peace Prize.
That's a bit incorrect. He was nominated after 12 days. He won after 9 months. But the thawing effect on international diplomacy is harder to quantify than a snarky timeline is able to delineate.Okay, but wouldn't you agree that the post is correct in pointing out that when he was nominated, twelve days after assuming office, that he had no achievements to speak of? And that after nine monthes in office, the only real thing that he has done to thaw international relations is, in essence, annonce that he is not George W, Bush? There are still Amerian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, and President Obama hasn't changd course on any other major policy issue involving international relations. So, clearly, twelve days or nine months, it was way too early to award him the Noble Peace Prize.
Well there were some pirates shot under his watch since then so that helped "peace" right?
|
|
People get nominated for all kinds of reasons. Having Obama's name in the pot certainly makes sense, especially as he's the freaking President of the United States.
Anyway, he deserves it for bringing the US back into line with the rest of the world, in terms of global diplomacy, and once again making the US respected in the world. Sarkozy thinks it represents the US once again being in the hearts of the world. I'd agree.
Well, well, well. All that talk about how political threads are a bad idea on Paizo's boards, and how people should know better, then this.
Too funny.
Anyway, I voted for Obama (even in the primary!), and up until very recently I really liked him. Lately he's gone past compromise and into capitulation; the Dalai Lama debacle was inexcusable. The president needs to grow a backbone.
As for the Nobel: He got it for backing the United States down from it's previous stance of pre-emptive aggression as "self-defense." As much as I consider that change much needed, the award is very premature.
I would say that's a logical argument for any nation (particularly Iran) to develop nukes.Well, look at the recent history.
Iraq, sits around under a no-fly-zone, unable to do anything to anyone, does not have WMDs (despite having been sold the components, apparently lacking the technical know-how or will to assemble them, leading to incredible frustration on the part of the executives who *know* they sold them the stuff) gets it's butt kicked for no real reason other than to prove that we could (since we know they had nothing to do with 9/11, being hated enemies of that branch of Islam, who are now gloriously rewarded for 9/11 by being handed Iraq, the only sizable Middle Eastern state other than Turkey, and, arguably, Jordan, to hold out against them, on a silver platter).
North Korea, makes all sorts of crazy apocalyptic threats, launches missiles over US allies, and detonates a nuke to prove that they can, and gets strenuously avoided and downplayed by the US.
Saudi Arabia, which gave us Osama bin Laden, 15 of the 19 hijackers and all of the funding for al-Qaeda, also has nukes ('cause we gave them to them, and continued giving nuclear technology to them *after 9/11*), and is politely hand-held throughout the entire war. Wouldn't want to piss off the guys whose oil billions actually funded it, after all.
If you were Iran, would you rather be Iraq or North Korea? Real threats are ignored, while America proves it's greatness by slaying imaginary dragons (and, breathtakingly, rewards terrorism in doing so).
But it's hardly the first time we've rewarded terror. The Arms-for-Hostages deal taught Iran that we'll happily capitulate to terror for short-term political gain. And now we've done it again, removing the secular government of Iraq that had kept them oppressed and out of power for decades, to hand it to the same sect whose extremists blew up the World Trade Center. If I...
Holy crap! Our global policy is even more hypocritical and amoral than my cynical ravings! Thanks for the link; I'm embarrassed that I was ignorant of this! I'll have to read up on this some more.
|
|
Remarkably, I think this has been one of the less contentious political threads we've had in some time. Kudos.
Personally, I like the image of Al Gore sitting at home, clutching his Oscar and saying, "I hope that guy doesn't make a movie, too..."
Well, I took a look, noticed a lot of people saying "I love Obama and still think his poopoo don't stink, but this is ridiculicklicklous."
So I don't think there was really that much to argue about.
I alleys wanned ti be a hero.
Thank you for the comic relief Sebast - the Jester of the Paizo boards.What?!?! I'm the villian of the Paizo boards. Heathy's the hero of the people, CourtFool is the jester, and Callous Jack is the grotesque leper that disgusts everyone.
I recommend buying a program. You can't follow the show if you don't have a program.
I'm gonna get the Nobel Prize in waffle-making. I'm pull out the waffle grill. Who's up for some waffles?
RPG Superstar 2013
|
They should make an acception....come on, Darwin....greatest scientist in history....Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine(though i wish it where more generally awarded for discoveries in biological science than specificially medicine and Physiology) I also kind of think that this year, the prize should have posthumously awarded to Charles Darwin for his work on the theory of evolution by natural selection.I think i'd rather focus on the nobel prizes that really matter, rather than the peace prize.Like the Nobel prize for humour?Nobel prozes are not awarded posthumously.
Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories. If we are going to give Darwin an award (did sketches and observation replace experiment and attack the theory some time?), we should certainly also give an award for the folk who discovered the cell, sequenced DNA and discovered uses for adult stem cells.
Maybe all of those folk have already won a Nobel prize. But Darwin, greatest scientist in history? Clearly I need to brush up on the sections of his career where he tested, experimented and invited attack on his work. Also, the practical applications of his research, which surely will be on par with (adult) stem cell research and splitting the atom.
Greatest scientist ever?
Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.
Must... resist... constant urge to combat scientific illiteracy on the internet...
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
A few opinions to stick up for the gamer minority crowd:
The Nobel prize is essentially a guarantee that you live to counter American interests. Any time an organization can give a prize for peace to a man like Arafat, their judgment deserves questioning forever after.
Obama did nothing, has done nothing, and will continue to do nothing to earn a prize for peace, unless your definition of peace is "runs the American dollar into the ground but still makes their military available for the UN to police everyone but ACTUAL despots." Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice. We had 'peace' with Middle Eastern terrorists in that we did nothing while they attacked our country. That's not actual peace. When corruption and despotism run rampant, you don't have peace.
The Nobel prize is awarded to and by the sort of malcontents that think the only real evil in the world is the US.
And I saw it here on this thread somewhere. I just want to point out again that the argument "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" is the Straw Man of the Year for six years running.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.Must... resist... constant urge to combat scientific illiteracy on the internet...
So you say. You could teach instead of ad hom. I'd feel much more literate if I could be posted a list of scientific truths that can be attributed directly to Darwin.
So you say. You could teach instead of ad hom.
Check out the "Civil Religious Discussion" thread. I've spent pages on evolutionary theory there (in contrast to special creation), pro bono. Otherwise, I gave up professional science teaching about 8 years ago as (a) insufficiently lucrative and (b) pointless in the face of "feel good" philosophies that rely on emotion rather than direct observation. I do actual science now.
Any ad hominem attack in my post, by the way, was on our education system in general, and on your own high school biology teachers in particular, rather than on you. How can you be blamed for failing to learn what was never appropriately taught? Simply taking a biology course at any accredited university (other than one sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention, for obvious reasons) should do as well or better than I can here.
I will say this: if posthumous biology prizes were awarded, Darwin and Mendel would share a prize.
(P.S. I'll say this, too: Obama? A peace prize? What for??)
Tweet to One_World_Order_Seekrit_Cabal: Nobel Prize for Obama failed to give any of the Usual Talking Heads an aneurysm. Nice try though.
Personally, I like the image of Al Gore sitting at home, clutching his Oscar and saying, "I hope that guy doesn't make a movie, too..."
Or worse: "I have to stay ahead of Obama. I've always wanted an Emmy... and I love The Transformed Man... maybe Shatner is available for a duet..."
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironic that President Obama is given the Nobel Peace Prize on the same day that the United States (in the person of NASA) is attacking the moon.
Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that... (the post, I have been hearing about shooting the moon [reminds me of Hearts] for the past week)
It is pretty odd, but the Peace Prize has been used as a political statement before.|
|
I believe this shouldn't have been posted, however I will answer this thread in my most humble opinion.
It is too early for Obama to have won this prize and for the reasons why except may be for the attempt to have more peaceful relations with the Muslim world which perhaps given the radical Muslim historical record maybe impossible. As for the financial crisis - a big BUZZER.
I am not affiliated with either the Democrats nor the Republicans because I feel they have no true interest in the US other than for their own personal gain and have no such thoughts of maintaining the US community which is obvious by the current polarization of our own citizens. No one is allowed to openly debate on both sides and each side censors each other which in the end only hurts our nation. If I was one of our founding fathers, I would be surprise and happy that we have made it thus far, and angry and sad of our current direction to a has been.
So yes, I did not vote for Obama nor did I vote for McCain. My hope lies in an up and coming political party to deliver us or at the very least myself from dread.
If I was Obama, I would humbly decline and ask them to wait and see what I can do because everything is still in motion and my plans are not fully realized. If he did that, then I would think him to be an honorable man. Alas, it may just be hopeful wishing. I just don't think the results are in and it is way too early to award such a prestigious award. In other words, I think they are making a mockery out of the award and setting not only the Nobel committee up for failure but Mr. Obama as well.
I am open to a cool debate like I have with my two political party relatives and I will throw the flag down if anyone gets hostile.
It's not really fair to say that blues and reds don't have the best interest of the nation at heart. In fact, it's pretty pessimistic. The parties have different philosophies which clash with each other, not a desire to take over - if they did have this as their goal, they wouldn't have attracted any supporters. The populace is the heart of the party, and it influences who ultimately gets elected.
On another note, the founding fathers weren't very far-seeing either - it just happened that a stable nation was formed by their own self-interest.|
|
I wonder if members of the IOC are on the Noble Peace Prize committee and felt bad that Chicago didn't get the summer games?That is the very first thing that crossed my mine when I first saw the headline.
I thought maybe the trip to Copenhagen was a ruse to be there to accept the prize, but then I looked it up and found out Obama was back in the states.
|
|
I find it funny that there is still a deep seated need to take stabs at Palin, but good piece.Ouch! A funny WaPo editorial.LOL - a great comparison.
I find the stabs at Palin funny.
So you say. You could teach instead of ad hom. I'd feel much more literate if I could be posted a list of scientific truths that can be attributed directly to Darwin.Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.Must... resist... constant urge to combat scientific illiteracy on the internet...
Steven, when you use phrases like...
Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.
... your going to attract snarky comments. In science, theory is actually more important than a law.
Basically, a law is fact. A single observable thing. Laws are almost entirely useless you specifically want to know how that one thing has been observed to behave. So with planetary motion we turn to Kepler who can tell us
The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at a focus.A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
Kepler tells us nothing about why planets behave in this manner. You have to turn to a number of theories to understand our best guess at why planets behave in such a manner. The theory of gravity, which contains a number of laws about the behaviour of gravity, special relativity and the standard model which contains a number of laws also.
The major difference between a law and a theory is that theories are both descriptive and predictive. For instance, general relativity was able to accurately predict the behaviour of mercury, which seemed to break elements of Newtons model.
Laws decribe how the world works.
Theories explain why the world functions in the manner that the laws describe.
Hopefully from now on you'll understand that something being 'a theory' does not in anyway mean that it is uncertain. When a scientist refers to theories, they are talking about some of the things they are most sure about.
As far as 'scientific truths', it isn't really terminology any scientist would really be comfortable with, so i doubt you'll ever get such a list, but in my next post i will try to explain why the hyposis that darwin put forwards in the origin of species was so profound and why darwin is arguably the greatest scientist in history.
Well, Hitler was one of the nominees for the Nobel Peace Price once. Shirin Ebadi, the neato female judge who got it a while back, doesn't seem to mind doling out death sentences. Al Gore got his for a crappy, lie-infested movie that even got the brits to set up rules for things that needed to be stated if the movie was to be used in education.
In short: It's not exactly a good achievement to get a Nobel Peace Price. All it means is that the norwegians want to kiss up to you.
Congratulations, Obama. Or something. We're all excitedly waiting for when Chavez or Lukasjenko get it.
They should make an acception....come on, Darwin....greatest scientist in history....Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine(though i wish it where more generally awarded for discoveries in biological science than specificially medicine and Physiology) I also kind of think that this year, the prize should have posthumously awarded to Charles Darwin for his work on the theory of evolution by natural selection.I think i'd rather focus on the nobel prizes that really matter, rather than the peace prize.Like the Nobel prize for humour?Nobel prozes are not awarded posthumously.
Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories. If we are going to give Darwin an award (did sketches and observation replace experiment and attack the theory some time?), we should certainly also give an award for the folk who discovered the cell, sequenced DNA and discovered uses for adult stem cells.
Maybe all of those folk have already won a Nobel prize. But Darwin, greatest scientist in history? Clearly I need to brush up on the sections of his career where he tested, experimented and invited attack on his work. Also, the practical applications of his research, which surely will be on par with (adult) stem cell research and splitting the atom.
Greatest scientist ever?
Physics has a problem. The rules it thinks it understands about thing which are very small and the rules that it thinks it understands about the stuff that is really big are entirely contraditory. The universe shouldn't work, but it clearly does. Normally you'd say well one of them must be wrong. The problem is that both can make hugely accurate predictions and product practical applications. This convosation is only possible because of things we learned from quantum physics. But at the same time, we knew blackholes existed for quite some time before we ever spotted one.
This quandry is described as the search for the unified theory, or the theory of evrything. An idea that will explain how the universe can behave the way it demonstrably does, why it is that an electron can jump through both slots at once, but why General Stubblebine cant walk through a wall. I think it is fair to say that this search cause a lot of excitement and a little bit of angst amongst physists.
Biology, by contrast, doesn't really have the search for a unifying theory. There is a ver good reason for why no looks for it. It's already been expressed, and has been for 150 years now, in the form of Charles Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection and mendals explination of genetics. To quote Theodosius Dobzhansky, 'Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of Evolution.'
Evolution is both a fact, and possibly the most solidly grounded scientific theory in existance. The underlying principles of evolution are used in every field of biology to some degree. Form work related to antibiotic resistance to work on genetic finger printing.
The use of genetic finger printing for perternity tests and forensics is entirely dependant on decent with modification and the existance of retro-virus. Without evolution and mendelian genetics (Thank you Kirth) one of the underlying tools of our legal system would fall to bits.
One of the most beautiful elements of the theory of evolution by natural selection is the manner in which it transends biology. It has created entire disciplines within both psychology(perhapes unsuprisingly) and engineering. Computer design programs based upon evolutionary principles have produced innovations that humans might never never have thought off, just by applying selective pressures simulated chunks of metal.
Many claim that evolution hasn't been observed, but they are wrong. We have seen its effects in only a few generation, and we have now observed hundreds of speciation events both with the lab and out in the wild.
And all this is part of why evolution by natural selection is so important. Every drug you use, every operation you will ever have, every food you'll ever eat, every time you use common sense psychology to evalutate a social interaction, evolution has played a part in us understanding it and its developement, either by people or by nature. It is the biological theory of everything.
You ask if sketches and observation replaced experiment. The simple answer to that is it depends on what your doing. Darwin, in the publication of 'on the origin of species' was setting out a hyposis, what in common parlance would accurately be described as a theory. Is an idea, supported by vast amounts of observation, with a challange to others to explore the idea. Given that no mechanisms of inheritance had at this time, been discovered, there was little that could be done to prove or disprove the hyposis. Darwin, was a humble man in many ways, he didn't flounder around looking for ways to prove his hyposis. Rather he formed it, and then trusted to the idea to win its own arguments.
And win those arguments it did. Time and time again after the discovery of the Gene. While the theory of evolution by natural selection itself has evolved, it would still be recognisable to darwin.
150 year have past since the publication of 'On the origin of species', and our understanding of Evolution has not drasticially changed...compare that to our understanding of cosmology and gravity over similar lengths of time.
Biology hasn't stood still, far from it. Rather what has happened is that wave after wave of data has built upon the theory of evolution by natural selection, to the point where there are many times moreserious academics who question the holicaust than there are biologists who reject evolution.
So yes, i feel the claim that Charles Darwin is the greatest scientist in history is far from and idle claim. I am far from the only person with a science education that makes it. Almost any biologist would give it serious consideration, and many chemists and physists have made the claim, and believe me, them physists don't like admiting anyone is better than them ;)
This post is brought to you by Ctrl-A and Ctrl-C
Disclaimer: I don't like Obama's policies (though I'm sure he's a nice guy in RL)
Meh. It's a trophy. The award has kinda lost its luster in recent years. Even Obama seems a bit puzzled about his win. Enjoy the award, Pres. Obama, for what it is worth. I'm sure you'll have a wonderful post-presidential career following in Jimmy Carter's footsteps.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Okay, I know there's already a hundred page forum on evooution vs creation, and I know that there are believers on both sides of that talk among gamers, though fellas like me are in a clear minority. I alsom know that believeing in God isn't automatically always going to get you flamed here by fifty people, so it isn't as if I feel I am being put upon.
I can handle a reasonable amount of snark - especially if it's funny. I suppose snark and ad hom are not (always) the same thing, so I redact that comment.
I really struggle with the two halves of evolution. I get that if you believe in evolutionary theory, there aren't really two halves, and I get that the terms micro- and macro- evolution are viewed as misused. I just don't know how else to describe the differences in the two.
Maybe more later..wife beckons...
I really struggle with the two halves of evolution. I get that if you believe in evolutionary theory, there aren't really two halves, and I get that the terms micro- and macro- evolution are viewed as misused.
Well stated. I'm sure you've run across well-meaning but Biblically illiterate people point to apparent contradictions in the Bible as "proof" that there's no God or something, when anyone who has actually bothered to study them in context knows that the "contradictions" are apparent only, not actual. Well, Neo-Darwinian-Mendelian Synthesis (to use a more accurate term than "Darwinism") is subject to the same thing.
You are correct: there are not really two "halves" -- micro- vs. macro -- but the Discovery Institute and others have made an excellent, concerted effort to introduce seemingly "common sense" things into the language that they can then exploit as "contradictions." As you point out, anyone who really understands how the modern theory works sees right through these things, but people who don't really get it -- most of the U.S. population, for example, thanks to the deplorable state of science education here -- are easily confused by the smoke and mirrors. A last point is that, if you've seen as much evidence as I have, and if you understand the theory, evolution is hardly a "belief" -- unless stating that the sun seems to move across the sky is a "belief."
|
So you say. You could teach instead of ad hom.Check out the "Civil Religious Discussion" thread. I've spent pages on evolutionary theory there (in contrast to special creation), pro bono.
Sorry Kirth, but I had to laugh when I saw this... I thought to myself "He's gonna blow a gasket if we folks don't start wording ourselves more clearly". Your efforts on the aforementioned thread are appreciated though. :)
Sorry Kirth, but I had to laugh when I saw this... I thought to myself "He's gonna blow a gasket if we folks don't start wording ourselves more clearly". Your efforts on the aforementioned thread are appreciated though.
Thanks, Moorluck! Yeah, I need to stop. At least I'm laughing at myself now :)
Steven, when you use phrases like...
Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.... your going to attract snarky comments. In science, theory is actually more important than a law.
Basically, a law is fact. A single observable thing. Laws are almost entirely useless you specifically want to know how that one thing has been observed to behave.
I think this is not entirely accurate. I think that Laws that deal with a specific situation are clearly more important than Theories that deal with other different situations, for that given situation. Saying the Theory of Evolution is more important than the Laws of Thermodynamics when I am constructing a machine that change heat to work. In real, everyday work, often times "why" something happens is much less important than "how" something happens.
Do you really think there wouldn't have been a conventional war between the U.S. and Soviet Union long ago if it weren't for the fact that if they came to blows, they knew that it would be the end of the world, literally?
Yeah, the unconventional war among them really worked out fine. MAD only assured that they would confront and kill people from other countries rather than their own.