Conservatives claim that the protest they had in Quincy, Illinois (where the feature attractions were Instapundit and Andrew Breitbart, God help them) was attended by 12,000. The police say… 2,000.
The way this false estimate came into being is relatively simple: Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, lied, claiming that ABC News had reported numbers of between 1.0 and 1.5 million when they never did anything of the sort. A few tweets later, the numbers had been exaggerated still further to 2 million. Kibbe wasn’t “in error”, as Malkin gently puts it. He lied. He did the equivalent of telling people that his penis is 53 inches long.
Is it any wonder now why George W. Bush drove the country into a ditch fiscally? Conservatives can’t do math, and his administration was lousy with ‘em.
Math Follies, is that like the Govt. spending gobs of money on bailouts and subsidies and then telling folks that only the rich people will have tax increases? Or is it like subsidizing 30 or 47 million people, adding them to the insurance rolls and thinking that the costs will go down? Maybe it’s like raising projected govt. debt by 1000% and wondering if inflation is going to be a problem.
No now I get it, math follies are like votes in Chicago. More votes counted than registered voters.
No, you’re confusing common sense economic policy of Democrats with the failed economic policies and people counting skills of the right.
AO, No, Oliver is referring to the millions of jobs saved, by this administration, you no the ones I am speaking of. Well here is a clip from that Conservative bastion USA Today:
“WASHINGTON — President Obama’s economic advisers estimated Thursday that the economic stimulus package has saved or created about 1 million jobs, drawing immediate criticism from Republicans.”
Of course in Democratic math circles invisible jobs count, so they cannot be verified, ACORN classifies them as (existence challenged), hell in Chicago the fastest growing segment of the population is leprechauns. but hey, you can trust their math.
So Sayeth the Impaler!
Because letting Republicans run things for another four years would totally have turned our economy around.
Obama has been president for less than a year, and we’ve seen objective improvements in the economy with regards to the markets and employment numbers. He passed the largest tax-cut ever. The employent situation still ain’t grand, but it’s looking a lot better than the end of 2008 where there was a real possibility of a complete global financial collapse.
It’s with much anticipation that I look forward to 2011, when the CBO is predicting very sold 3-4% growth and a return to a reasonably low amount of unemployment. All Obama will have to do to win his landslide re-election victory is remind America that the Party of Limbaugh hoped he failed to end the Bush Recession and turn America’s economy around.
“So Sayeth the Impaler!”
Jesus that’s obnoxious. Please stop.
Because letting Republicans run things for another four years would totally have turned our economy around.
If anything, it would’ve made it worse. After all, if John McCain had his way, Social Security would be in the toilet.
It’s worth repeating: Obama could cure cancer and AIDS and wing-nuts would still wet their panties.
What he’s turning out to be is an above-average president who is turning things around within less than a year of being in charge.
Where were we on November 14th of the first year of Bush’s presidency? Oh, that’s right — cowering in fear in the aftermath of a preventable terrorist attack that killed 3,000 civilians despite multiple warnings.
Jaim, I applaud your optimism, I have never cowered in fear,”cowering in fear in the aftermath of a preventable terrorist attack that killed 3,000 civilians despite multiple warnings.” wow you are a truther. As Oliver would type C-R-A-Z-Y.
You should be the poster boy for Kool-Aid after this post.
So Sayeth the Impaler! (Jaim, you don’t see this, its in your mind)
Lying is a way of life for the cult of Armey
Lying is a way of life for the cult of Armey.
And all day today, we’re going to hear from rightie commentators that “millions…MILLIONS!” attended Saturday’s tantrum in DC…but the Old Media refuse to report it.
However, even the Washington fucking TIMES reports “tens of thousands” in attendance.
I expect to see at least three times as many protestors on Oct. 5 in support of reform…I plan to be there.
“wow you are a truther.”
What is the primary goal of the Commander-in-Chief?
What happened on 9/11/2001?
That doesn’t make me a truther. I know 19 religious radicals, mostly from Saudi Arabia, none of them for Saudi Arabia’s mortal enemy Iraq, murdered 3,000 Americans that day.
So what did Bush do? He promoted his “intelligence” people into higher positions of power.
I don’t usually advocate “not feeding the trolls.” I enjoy watching the debates between the reality-based here and guys like Frank, Dennis, AO, etc.
But this illiterate, immature, run-on-sentence-usin’, egomaniac-without-a-cause dude “Impaler” is a special case.
Maybe if you just ignore him he’ll finally fucking go away, and take his superhero disguise with him. So sayeth my ass.
we’ve seen objective improvements in the economy with regards to the markets and employment numbers.
Jaim is not paying attention. And this weekend’s “Let’s piss off the Chinese with a trade war” is sure to help things right along as well.
“I enjoy watching the debates between the reality-based here and guys like Frank, Dennis, AO, etc.”
LOL,
Reality based is an oxymoron when applied to liberals. The concept of no free lunch is totally lost on them. It wouldn’t surprise me if they thought the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc. were subject to legislative modification.
And this weekend’s “Let’s piss off the Chinese with a trade war” is sure to help things right along as well.
What? We should give them one of our spy planes instead?
It wouldn’t surprise me if they thought the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc. were subject to legislative modification.
It was not a liberal who sponsored legislation to fix the value of pi at 3.
Reality based is an oxymoron when applied to liberals. The concept of no free lunch is totally lost on them.
Laffer Curve, bitchez!!!
It wouldn’t surprise me if they thought the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc. were subject to legislative modification.
How about laws of biology (i.e., evolution), geology (i.e., the earth’s age), cosmology (i.e., the rest of the universe), or global science (i.e., global warming)? You dumbfucks in JesusLand believe your dogshit, the rest of us Reality Based will stick with Science.
Indeed, I know the media, labor unions, and others would like you to believe “like Cynthia McKinney” that evolution is one of biology’s laws’ but alas no, it still is just a theory.
http://www.livescience.com/evolution/
So Sayeth Bruce Henry’s ass.
P.S. Quaker “It was not a liberal who sponsored legislation to fix the value of pi at 3.” LMAO, you got to tell me who, don’t leave me hangin.
Some actual scientists explain how one field of science, in this case evolution, works
I’ll stick with the scientists, Nobel Prize winners, and their ilk. If you wish to stick with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or other like-minded non-scientists, by all means, go right ahead.
Apologies for feeding a Republican troll.
others would like you to believe … that evolution is one of biology’s laws’ but alas no, it still is just a theory.
You don’t know what either of those two words mean. Look them up.
I’ll get you started: there is no such thing as “just a theory” in science.
[...] You drew 2 million people to Washington on Saturday! I mean, someone said ABC News said you did, and clearly that’s totally accurate, just as accurate as the thing I heard where Fox News is [...]
[...] You drew 2 million people to Washington on Saturday! I mean, someone said ABC News said you did, and clearly that’s totally accurate, just as accurate as the thing I heard where Fox News is [...]
Just ask the Great Gazoogle.
Indeed, I do not have time to educate you in biology, but what I can tell you is the only evolution that has occurred is the term theory. When I was in school Scientists used the Scientific Method to determine proof of a thorium, (specific part of a theory) and this would determine if after the experiment, could be repeated with the same outcome, then it is peer reviewed then it could become a Scientific Fact, or law. The Theory of evolution as proposed has parts that work and parts that don’t. For instance people think that “survival of the fittest” is evolution, it is not, it is part of the process used by Darwin to try and explain (theorize) how a Species changes, (evolves). This is what Darwin classifies and attempts to explain how one Species changes into another. Not how a species changes hair color, and gets taller (natural selection). There currently does not exist to my knowledge any example or (proof) that this has occurred, or ever occurred, in the mammalian geological record. Nor has this been repeated in a lab, no this theory is for the most part still in its observational stage after more than a hundred years.
Problems with evolution, a donkey mates with a horse, this creates a mule, but mules are sterol so they cannot propagate the species, the species cannot take advantage of natural selection it dies out in its first generation. There are certain biological laws regarding interspecies breeding that the theory of Evolution has problems with, and Mutation, (the only real possibility left for Evolutionists), have their own laws, (spontaneous abortion) to contend with. If a mutation occurred in a host, and that Mutation led to a new Species then the Host would (high probability) abort the fetus. Similar to the problem with organ transplants, the body does not recognize it and tries to evacuate it as a foreign object.
So theorizes the Impaler!
Indeed, I do not have time to educate you in biology,
Nor the ability, evidently.
Also: A “thorium”?!? Haw!
Dear Indeed,
“You dumbfucks in JesusLand believe your dogshit…” ? Nice, civil discourse there.
Very respectful of the +80% of your fellow citizens who profess belief in a Creator (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Native American, etc.), those who recognize that the staggering complexity and diversity of all life forms on Earth couldn’t possibly “just happen” by trillions & trillions of chance mutations of existing organisms’ cells, all beneficial to the organism’s continued existence.
Macro-evolution is a fairly tale for adult atheists.
oops my bad on the spelling, i said Biology, spelling is not my strong point as I am sure my other post prove, but you get the idea. Thanks for the link oh great gazoo!
Impaler you don’t know jack about biology, and even less about the scientific theory of evolution, except what you may have learned in a mediocre high school class some decades ago. Your little “lesson” to Indeed proves as much.
Do yourself a favor and quit while you’re behind (less you make even more of an ass of yourself.)
“I’ll stick with the scientists, Nobel Prize winners, and their ilk.”
LOL,
I presume you might mean notable past winners such as Al Gore.
“Impaler you don’t know jack about biology, and even less about the scientific theory of evolution, except what you may have learned in a mediocre high school class some decades ago. Your little “lesson” to Indeed proves as much.”
Even funnier, Southern Quaker misses the point entirely, Impaler is not describing the theory of evolution, he is describing scientific theory as opposed to philosophical theory. In hastening to pile on to Impaler, rather than expose him as a neanderthal antievolutionary, she only exposes herself as ignorant about the workings of the hard sciences as opposed to perhaps woman’s studies and other high level courses that make up a liberals distorted view of the world.
And let us return to the ever charming Indeed.
“You dumbfucks in JesusLand believe your dogshit, the rest of us Reality Based will stick with Science.”
How can we argue with such a learned scholar. The depth of his fields of study are overwhelming. Not content with the simple efforts of mastering one subject Indeed is a bit of a renaissance man. Biology, geology, cosmology and global science, nothing is beyond this modern day Leanardo. He even goes the extra mile and discounts Art Laffer’s works on economics not in latin but in ebonics.
“Laffer Curve, bitchez!!!”
Like his idol Obama, Indeed sees no relationship between levels of taxation and levels of participation and blindly trusts that one can dip from the well forever. In earlier times the Laffer Curve was roughly explained in the parable of the golden goose.
Please Indeed give us mere mortals the benefit of your wisdom and explain to us the fallacies of Laffer’s Curve.
We all are hungry for a bit of free lunch!
Gravity is also a theory. It is also true, barring the appearance of another theory with stronger explanatory power.
Evolution is equally true.
LOL,
Jaim doesn’t get it either.
Slayer – “Problems with evolution, a donkey mates with a horse, this creates a mule, but mules are sterol so they cannot propagate the species, the species cannot take advantage of natural selection it dies out in its first generation.”
To bad this doesn’t apply to conservatives. I mean the inability to propagate. The mule part is spot on.IMO.
she only exposes herself as ignorant about the workings of the hard sciences as opposed to perhaps woman’s studies and other high level courses that make up a liberals distorted view of the world.
PhD in astrophysics, oh Amused Asshole. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
yee gods, watching this bunch of pseudo-intellectual twits expound upon teh science, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Please Indeed give us mere mortals the benefit of your wisdom and explain to us the fallacies of Laffer’s Curve.
2000-2008
Jaim, “Gavity is not just a good idea its the law.” Bugs Bunny
Southern Quaker, wouldn’t Southern Quaker be grits?
Grits, oh learned one,impart me with your wisdom. I await your lesson.
Um, please stop spewing your ignorance on science. “Just a theory” isn’t a bad thing in science if the theory is verifiable and it works. Thus, gravity and evoluion are true, with the understanding that newer verifiable theories might replace them some day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn#The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
Here’s a hint: “Creationism” is bullshit that has no support via the scientific method. While it is a theory, it’s a theory that’s baseless, not to mention stupid.
Impaler, the term “law” hasn’t been used in the hard sciences ever since General Relativity disproved Newton’s “Laws”.
“PhD in astrophysics, oh Amused Asshole. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.”
Damn, it’s cute the way you stamp your feet when you are patronized. Seriously it sounds like you may have a much firmer grasp of the hard sciences than I would have imagined.
So what do you do to make a living in this remote speck of the cosmos? How much action is there outside of acadamia? And on a completely different note how about a simplified primer on dark matter?
Zython,
I’m not really sure 2000-2008 clearly disputes the LC. As a student of economics you have the figures for taxation and revenue readily at hand I trust. Say are you still posting as other people?
Grits, oh learned one,impart me with your wisdom. I await your lesson.
Since you asked,
A scientific law is the concise statement of an empirical relationship between measured or observed quantities, often expressed mathematically. A law, similar to a postulate in mathematics, can be taken as true and does not need to be proven.
A scientific theory is a set of related observations and hypotheses, verified by multiple researchers and accepted by the scientific community as a whole. A scientific theory includes hypothesis and predictions which are subject to testing by what is know colloquially as the “scientific method.”
For example, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is an empirical mathematical formula describing the dependence of the gravitational force between two objects on their masses and the distance between them. It does not explain the phenomenon of gravitation, it only predicts the simple gravitational interaction between point masses.
Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity is a complex series of hypothesis and mathematical expressions which describe gravitation as the manifestation of matter on the curvature of space-time. I might add that Newton’s Law is still valid within the rather narrowly defined case of two point finite masses separated by modest distances. It cannot, however, explain phenomena such as the precession of Mercury’s equinox, or the bending of light by the sun.
Likewise, Harvey-Weinstein Equilibrium is a fundamental law of population genetics, in the form of a mathematical equation describing the distribution and expression of alleles (forms of a gene) in a population.
The Theory of Evolution is a complex set of hypotheses and observations which describe origin and molecular basis for accumulated differences in the genetic code which leads to speciation. It encompasses the origin of life on earth, the fossil record, the genetic code, and research into the origin of disease and development of vaccines. There is no credible biological explanation for these phenomenon outside of the Theory of Evolution. That evolution occurs is a fact backed up by an inordinate amount of evidence. The theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation of how and why those changes take place.
Damn, it’s cute the way you stamp your feet when you are patronized.
Well, at least you admit it.
I am a professor of physics and conduct research on star formation.
Well said SQ. So would I be correct in assuming that you find the distribution and expression of alleles in isolated breeding populations might lead to differing physical charactoristics between members of the same species?
Admit you’re cute? LOL. Acadamia has been your choice, it seems. What other opportunities are out there for your students?
Say are you still posting as other people?
That depends, do you still hate America?
The theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation of how and why those changes take place.
That’s all well and good, but try saying that out loud at the Republican National Convention. Try getting a Republican candidate for, well, pretty much anything, to agree with you. Or don’t bother. What’s the point? You can’t argue with Dumbfuckistan.
Zython,
That’s a mighty curious statement, your behavior being directed by my emotions. Strange way to look at your world, reality based huh? If indeed you are a sock puppet which seems quite likely, I wonder how the shame burns.
AO and Inhaler brought pea-shooters to an artillery duel, thanks to Southern Quaker.
If indeed you are a sock puppet which seems quite likely
Huh? Do you even know what the term “sock puppet” means? Can you explain it? Why does it seem quite likely? For whom am I likely shilling? Mary Rosh? Sprezzatura? IndyNH? Rahodeb? This motley assortment of heathen scum Evolutionists?
Jaim: AO and Inhaler brought pea-shooters to an artillery duel, thanks to Southern Quaker.
Roger that. I don’t know much about astrophysics, but I know a bitch-slap when I see it. I think that lesson plan was titled “So STFU-101, alright?”
Jaim,
I was surprised by SQ’s grasp of hard sciences but I don’t believe I said anything in opposition to SQ. SQ and Impaler are much closer together in what they are saying than they are apart although I am sure SQ will disagree. Living in an ivory tower sometimes makes for a bit of pretension. I’m not surprised to see you try and score points off someone else’s intellectual parrying however. The peashooter analogy describes your condition of being educated beyond your abilities rather well.
Uh Indeed, the sock puppet comment is not addressed to you unless Indeed is another of Zython’s disguises.
Uh Indeed, the sock puppet comment is not addressed to you unless Indeed is another of Zython’s disguises.
Uhf Amused Observer, you wrote that it “seems quite likely” that I’m a sock puppet. Why? What do you think “sock puppet” means anyway?
I made a reference to Kuhn and the structure of scientific breakthroughs, not to mention the nature of “theory” not being the dirty word that wing-nuts seem to think it is when they try and debunk evolutionary theory, something they know nothing about.
Do you even know who Kuhn is? Did you even finish high school you blathering, useless idiot?
AO, go back and re-read Impaler’s (seriously, what kind of douche names himself “Impaler” – the only thing douchier would be ending each comment by referring to himself in the third person) idiocy above. As a biological scientist, I can assure you that he has made a number of intensely idiotic statements that SQ would both object to; most laughably the assertion that a theory is an immature idea that becomes a law following peer-review. Of course his ideas about mutation, graft vs host organ rejection, and spontaneous abortion are also highly amusing and complete nonsense. I would suggest that Impaler’s complete knowledge of the biological sciences is derived from reading X-men comics, but even those are more likely to be accurate than his shit-stained ramblings.
Of course, ignorance is understandable (and frankly, expected coming from a first-rate wingnut troll), but only a truly egomaniacal and obtuse douchebag would introduce it with the statement “I do not have time to educate you in biology”.
Wow, I go home and watch a little football, go to get email and check news before I go to bed and Grits, gets all technical on me. Ok, very good, so here we go.
Great at astrophysics, suck at reading comprehension, in the post I said, ‘but what I can tell you is the only evolution that has occurred is the term theory” even you cannot argue with this, a generation ago or so, the terms Law, Theory, scientific, or for that matter evolution, these words are the evolution here as I stated.
I personally believe its laziness, “oh yea you know theory, law, hypothesis, yes that’s what I do, I created the language of evolution, can I buy you a drink?”.
Now, let me explain the second part of my post. (“The Theory of evolution as proposed has parts that work and parts that don’t. For instance people think that “survival of the fittest” is evolution, it is not, it is part of the process used by Darwin to try and explain (theorize) how a Species changes, (evolves).”)
Well I was posting for Indeed, so I was keeping it simple. (No insult intended). When the debate started on Creationism v. Darwinism, there was a group, let’s call them atheists, that in that time would like nothing better than to prove, then push the Darwin’s theory of evolution, and erase G_D from the landscape.
So back to the Theory of Evolution, the Law of Natural Selection is deemed this way, because it is verifiable in the Life Science arena, this when later coupled with Mendel’s laws, again why did they call it Mendel’s Laws? Because, Mendel’s work was rediscovered and his experiments where replicated (easy, grits, keeping it simple) with the same results. This created a powerful combination to try and push the Theory of Evolution. In fact, as the Theory of Evolution evolved, it would pick up other pieces along the way, Speciation, DNA (whole other subject), and others, but instead of saying, “oh that occurs because of the Law of Natural Selection”,people say, (and we have all heard this used in the classroom, media, and by politicians), “oh that’s the proof of Evolution, it’s not a theory it’s a fact.”
And do not confuse the folks here, with Astrophysics. The realm of your field of study, has many more laws, and is far more predictive mathematically, than Life Sciences, the current scientific community cannot even agree on the mathematics with Speciation, let alone, finding a missing link. Professor, if you would have read the rest of the post, I specifically asked for a mammalian example to be given, we know it can’t be given, it’s either undiscovered or does not exist. (trick question for Indeed). No, Evolution and Speciation (uncomfortably similar), which means if it occurred; the two related but now separate species cannot mate. You know let’s just say 4.2 million years ago there was a common ancestor and today one is a chimp and the other is human, the two cannot mate. But, if that occurred, (whole other set of problems) not the least of which could be spontaneous abortion, then where is the missing link, and the chain of evidence, no it does not exist, (or undiscovered).
Moving the Goal Post (go bolts) on the definition to make it a reality, is scientific fraud of the highest level. Oh and for those of interest I am going to post definitions over time so the Professor here and the rest of you can witness Impaler’s Law of evolutionary theory! Well, maybe not, don’t want to inflame the Comparative Literature Department, now do we.
Law
A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
Theory
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971).
A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding (”explain”) a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984)
The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990)
An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995)
Evolution (now this is funny)
“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
“evolution: …the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower..” – Chambers (no date but older dictionary)
“evolution: …the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny” – Webster’s
I will find older definitions to further prove my theory, and post them soon, But scientist do this all the time, they are looking for grant money, and fame to get more grant money, part of my observations of my theory is in how good scientists have became at marketing, I remember when I was in the sixth grade and my science teacher was telling us the we descended from Neanderthals (we know no this to be false, or at least seriously questioned, wow grits accually has me being cautious), that the world was subject to overpopulation because some idiot with the newly created calculator, (perhaps it evolved from a grain of sand) did some math to say that by 2020, there would be starvation and 10’s of billions of people, and it would cause us to suffer a new ice age, ok it was a sixth grade class. But, they are good at marketing and getting you to believe them.
So my example and observation for my theory, Al Gore did not invent the Internet, but he did invent global warming, (different argument, relax) and when things started to go wrong with his theory, and he could not prove the existence of global warming, then it evolved into, (everyone say it with me) Global Climate Change, why you may ask, he could not prove his theory of Global Warming. What idiot would argue against Global Climate Change, the Climate changes every nanosecond. Its all Marketing people.
Oh and one more note, I am sure the Professor here will back me up on this, speaking of fraud and marketing, when you think of evolution, one usually (public education) thinks of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, the battle between atheist evolutionists and divine creation, this was a marketing hoax to make money and increase the population of the town it was held in, Oh and who do you think sponsored the event and staged this event, (and I am sure profited from it), none other than the ACLU, thats right 80+ years ago these little bastards were shaping public policy. Yep the same people who want G_D out of our lives, what a coincidence. Not!
So Sayeth the Impaler!
Did you read what SQ said about law and theory? Scientists don’t really talk about unchangeable laws that much any more. They talk about theories and the fact that theories will inevitably change over time (again, try and familiarize yourself with Kuhn).
So the theories of evolution and gravity might change in the future. This doesn’t invalidate their current explanatory power, or the fact that they are verifiable through research.
And your idiotic wall-of-text demonstrates that your are a pea-brain when it comes to science.
Jaim, are you serious, Kuhn, no i did not respond because its useless to the discussion, but I am sure he can write a theory of how, when I finish my book, a bunch of similer books will occur all at once, you know kind of like similar Movies come out close together. He can call it the Kuhn theory of entertainment.
So sayeth the Crusty Crab! (crabby patty anyone)
What?
Jaim, you know nothing, your thoughts are confused and baseless, all you can do is send me wiki links, and bitch when I don’t respond, you don’t know me, and I have tried to be nice, and have a little verbal jousting here, there are few competitors for me here. But at least there are a few, you are not among them.
If you would have followed my posts (read them), you would know why I am here. I am just sharpening my claws to get back into the political game, Oh the science stuff, no PhD, like Grits, but, you don’t practice for a fight with easy opponents, I will not need a Teleprompter to feed me answers, nor, retorts. People here know, I am confident I am. What kind of CEO, or politician would I be if I wasn’t? Oh and that is my real picture posted.
This Jaim is my game. What is yours!
I specifically asked for a mammalian example to be given
Here.
And if you’d like to read a detailed explanation, I recommend this.
I am sure the Professor here will back me up on this
Don’t bet on it.
Impaler demonstrates his impressive knowledge of ctrl-c and ctrl-v
FWIW, genetics (that tricky DNA you don’t want to get into, Impaler) provides pretty awesome evidence of evolution. Look at proteins that are identical (or nearly so) from mouse to man, despite a large number of non-coding mutations. One of the best examples is a protein that is identical in man and mouse, yet has 42 non-coding mutations. Other genes show little change to their proteins, while some show nearly complete reconstruction, suggest that changes led to evolutionary development. Do you have an alternative theory, Impaler?
Of course, Impaler is going to suggest that nothing is proof because we don’t have pictures from 30 million years ago and can’t perform whale evolution in the lab. Because he’s a twit.
SQ, in the first sentence of your link, “How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question.” could have been written by Dark Impaler! Oh and if you but a car in front of me and say its red, and it is indeed red, then I will agree. But if you put a Quadruped in a picture and then a whale and say, look the fin looks like a hand, or a paw. Then bam, it must have at one time walked on the earth, perhaps to retrieve Gary Larson’s baseball.
Crusty, you can’t reproduce it because it doesn’t happen that way. DNA are the building blocks of life, it doesn’t mean that I am related to it because I have the similar DNA sequencing, I like the Lego example I use in person, with Lego’s I can build a tree, I can build, a cat, I can build a monument to myself, the only thing they would have in common is the blocks, and me, the creator, any way that is why I said DNA a separate discussion.
So Evolves Impaler!
DNA are the building blocks of life, it doesn’t mean that I am related to it because I have the similar DNA sequencing
The hell it doesn’t, the fact that I could sequence everyone on earth and identify your parents and children doesn’t mean anything? Were I a defense attorney, I’d definitely want you in the jury. You have the perfect blend of ignorance and arrogance with which to obscure clear scientific data.
No doubt you can imagine a situation where some deity creates everything just like this 5000 years ago just to confuse scientists, planting fossils, designing similar DNA, etc, or you can try to think and learn and consider how things could have actually happened. What you’re doing requires ignorance and a good bit of plugging your ears and screaming “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!”.
But if you put a Quadruped in a picture and then a whale and say, look the fin looks like a hand, or a paw.
Did you read the rest of that article? You know, the evidence from nine different fields of study that support the evolution of the whale from terrestrial mammals? Did you try to understand any of those arguments, or did you just dismiss the best scientific minds in the country with your “Thus speaks the Impaler” schtick?
SQ, it’s sad when someone can’t read, it’s sadder when they can’t think, but it’s saddest when combined with absolute arrogance and an annoying tagline.
SQ, Crusty, the belief in Evolution is just that, a belief. Similar to belief in G-D, and Global Warming, although just the “new” religion, each with their own testimonials, proponents, and, detractors.
“No doubt you can imagine a situation where some deity creates everything just like this 5000 years ago just to confuse scientists, planting fossils, designing similar DNA, etc, or you can try to think and learn and consider how things could have actually happened.”
I do not believe this either this is just a popular argument used by detractors, that appeals to simple folk, to sway them to a belief in evolution.
“The hell it doesn’t, the fact that I could sequence everyone on earth and identify your parents and children doesn’t mean anything?”
Right, I agree with you. natural selection and the other laws, mentioned or inferred, are true. Just not evolution, of species, the speciation argument, when observed goes back to my theory of Evolution of Theory, argument you cannot disagree that there is much debate among scientists, today as to how to even define a Species, (again moving definition target) BSC is one. Or Phenetec, or one of the other concepts to describe what a Species is. I prefer if they can interbreed argument, but hey I am just one guy.
Insert tag line here!
“I am sure the Professor here will back me up on this”
Don’t bet on it.
Well can you at least agree to the fact that the Scopes Monkey trial was fraud, for entertainment, PR, and money.
sigh
I give up.
“SQ, Crusty, the belief in Evolution is just that, a belief.”
We’re done here.
Just not evolution, of species, the speciation argument, when observed goes back to my theory of Evolution of Theory, argument you cannot disagree that there is much debate among scientists, today as to how to even define a Species, (again moving definition target) BSC is one. Or Phenetec, or one of the other concepts to describe what a Species is
Impaler, you aren’t even smart enough to make a stupid argument, this is word salad from the Sarah Palin Institute of Technology (SPIT). Frankly, no one cares what you believe, because your beliefs are a pile of nonsense atop a steaming mound of feces. If you educate yourself far more thoroughly and demonstrate a bit of thought, then maybe your beliefs might be worth the electrons you’re currently wasting. But no one here is holding his/her breath.
Crusty, ah you know the way to my heart, when wrong, name call, careful or the teacher my keep you in for recess.
Jaim, you are the guy after a big fight that says, “sorry, I was parking the car”, then gives everyone a high five.