LawTalkers
Page 91 of 126 « First 41818990 91 9293101 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Waiting for Fitzgerald (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=704)

Spanky 10-21-2005 10:21 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
spanky. i love you, and you know that. But those guys think you're an idiot. So when you say I lose that means I win.

183-12
I may be an idiot, but I know enough to know when to defer to the experts. I believe in intelligent design.

However, when it comes to the sciences, the scientists should deside what goes into those subjects. It seems only in Biology that such an idea is disputed. Physicists decide what is taught in Physicis class, Chemists decide what is tought in Chemistry class, why not the same for Biology?

Evolution is a fact. However, other questions like, did man evolve from the Apes or did all complex life on the planet evolve from single celled animals, 99.9% percent of the Biology PHDs from acredited schools agree that such events took place.

Sometimes Biologists and geneticists disagree about certain aspects of evolution, and religious people take those disputes trying to say that because there is an argument some Biologists and Geneticists don't believe in evolution. That is disengenuous.

Until there is at least ten percent of Geneticists and Biologists that disagree with the concept that man evolved from the Apes or that all complicated life forms evolved from singles cell animals, then that is what should be taught in Biology class.

Science education is too important to the future of this country to be left to amateurs or to be fiddled with by politicians with different agendas. If our children are not educated in the basic concept of evolution then many will eventually lose Biology based jobs to Indians and Chinese students that were.

Spanky 10-21-2005 10:22 PM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
The World Is Flat it is then. I am about a third of the way through it. I am game for a Collapse field trip to the Natural History Museum (conveniently located relatively close to my work). I believe that the exhibit runs through February, but I will double check. I believe I will be able to drag Mr Man along (you likely don't know his work; he is an infrequent Fashion Board poster). Maybe Gattigap too if he is into that sort of thing. Gatti?

I may or may not know fringey, she may or may not live in Los Angeles and she may or may not want to accompany us to the museum. Fringey is nothing if not mysterious. I do my best not to speak for her. Riddle wrapped in a ... yadda yadda yadda.


ETA: It runs until January 17 - http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/collapse/
OK.

Spanky 10-21-2005 10:33 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
spanky. i love you, and you know that. But those guys think you're an idiot. So when you say I lose that means I win.

183-12
I love you too Hank, but don't you agree that the PB has become to civil? Is this partly my fault? Everyone is being nice to eachother and it is making the board a lot less fun to read.

Hank Chinaski 10-21-2005 10:39 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I may be an idiot, but I know enough to know when to defer to the experts. I believe in intelligent design.

However, when it comes to the sciences, the scientists should deside what goes into those subjects. It seems only in Biology that such an idea is disputed. Physicists decide what is taught in Physicis class, Chemists decide what is tought in Chemistry class, why not the same for Biology?

Evolution is a fact. However, other questions like, did man evolve from the Apes or did all complex life on the planet evolve from single celled animals, 99.9% percent of the Biology PHDs from acredited schools agree that such events took place.

Sometimes Biologists and geneticists disagree about certain aspects of evolution, and religious people take those disputes trying to say that because there is an argument some Biologists and Geneticists don't believe in evolution. That is disengenuous.

Until there is at least ten percent of Geneticists and Biologists that disagree with the concept that man evolved from the Apes or that all complicated life forms evolved from singles cell animals, then that is what should be taught in Biology class.

Science education is too important to the future of this country to be left to amateurs or to be fiddled with by politicians with different agendas. If our children are not educated in the basic concept of evolution then many will eventually lose Biology based jobs to Indians and Chinese students that were.
you can't post http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...454#post218454 then try and take me to task on some science point ever. You have no cred at all ever in science.

185-12

Ty@50 10-21-2005 11:45 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by cheval de frise
SHP, soup and balt already laid out the theory. The protocol requires an understanding of which specific mutations have which (cumulative) effects, often at different points in a biochemical and developmental cascade. One has to correlate phenotypic effects with specific genetic changes, understand what direct effect (if any) those changes have on gene expression (i.e., level/developmental timing/duration), regulatory feedback loops, resultant protein sequences and conformational consequences (protein folding is a four-dimensional process)...and so on. These are complex questions but they do have answers. Geneticists and biochemists are working on all of these problems now. As other posters have said, the probability that a SINGLE mutation could be responsible for the development of an entire organ is zero. Scientists are sequencing and deciphering non-human genomes as we type. The mouse genome was published recently, as was (I believe) the chimpanzee genome. Comparative genetics has already provided significant insights. We have a plan for getting the information that will answer your specific question, and are going about obtaining that information...unlike proponents of certain alternative "theories."

By the way, evolution is a fact, not a theory, at least at the micro level. Scientists have directly observed and altered the characteristics of lab bacteria by manipulating their environments over thousands of successive generations. One can selectively "evolve" bacteria that tolerate certain poisons or do not need certain nutrients. Natural processes have also resulted in such organisms. Blind cavefish with vestigial eyes are on the path towards ridding themselves of those organs. Once a transposon-driven (or direct) mutation inactivates the gene(s) responsible for ocular structural development -- and that mutation doesn't result in negative selective pressure because their environment doesn't require eyes -- eyeless cavefish will appear in increased numbers proportional to the overall population (known in human genetics as "the founder effect"). It's a messy process. There is evidence that certain attributes have evolved more than once, then died out as other, more beneficial mutations confer additional advantages in populations not having the original mutation. Environment plays a gigantic role. There are multiple false starts. At the end of the day, though, it is fairly clear how the overall process works. The biochemical details simply take a lot of parallel work (and computer power) to figure out.

Ramen.

CDF (on the one day I happen to visit the board for old times' sake, y'all have a GENETICS discussion???? I'm having flashbacks to MY prior professional life.)

(Edited to fix formatting)

even by my time we all realize this is meaningless waste of electrons.

Shape Shifter 10-22-2005 03:10 AM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
What I don't get is why doesn't the water on the surface just drain away into the center of the earth. The water on the surface of the earth is really thin. It is only five miles at the deepeest point and that is nothing compared to how far it is to the center of the earth. If the earth where a basketbal the oceans would be a fine mist on the surface.

So why doesn't the water just drain through the cracks?
Fuck. Good question. It probably just keeps draining through the earth until it comes out on the other side. Maybe this is where rivers come from?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-22-2005 01:07 PM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Fuck. Good question. It probably just keeps draining through the earth until it comes out on the other side. Maybe this is where rivers come from?
Or geysers.

Rock is more dense than water.

But not as dense as spanky, which causes me to wonder why he hasn't sunk to the middle of the earth.

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2005 01:21 PM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Fuck. Good question. It probably just keeps draining through the earth until it comes out on the other side.
Dude. think about it. If it did that what would happen when it gets to the other side? That's right it would flow right back to the first side. It would be like a Slinky. The fish would be all nauseous.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
These simpletons say that single-celled animals evolved into everytihng. I ask, focused example now, how does a single celled animal that splits to reproduce become Sebastian Dangerfield who has a penis that ejects fertilizing sperm, usually into Kleenex, but on occasion into a mate, and someday resulting in offspring.

What possible mutation could cause that change? And how would we test? Becuase these ideolouges are saying you can't mention creationism in schools because it solely relies on the untestable.
Whose creationism?

taxwonk 10-22-2005 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
179-12
You still haven't proven the existence of God, nor that there is only one.

179-14.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
182-12
You've double-counted the last three.

Still 179-14.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
183-12

(and when you criticize spelling, you are starting to hurt people's image of RT and I'm not going to stand here and let that happen.)
That was a triple-count. I'm going to have to start assessing penalty strokes.

179-15.

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2005 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
You still haven't proven the existence of God, nor that there is only one.

179-14.
Would you find me the post where I said there was 1? Any?

189-12

sgtclub 10-22-2005 03:19 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I may be an idiot, but I know enough to know when to defer to the experts. I believe in intelligent design.

However, when it comes to the sciences, the scientists should deside what goes into those subjects. It seems only in Biology that such an idea is disputed. Physicists decide what is taught in Physicis class, Chemists decide what is tought in Chemistry class, why not the same for Biology?

Evolution is a fact. However, other questions like, did man evolve from the Apes or did all complex life on the planet evolve from single celled animals, 99.9% percent of the Biology PHDs from acredited schools agree that such events took place.

Sometimes Biologists and geneticists disagree about certain aspects of evolution, and religious people take those disputes trying to say that because there is an argument some Biologists and Geneticists don't believe in evolution. That is disengenuous.

Until there is at least ten percent of Geneticists and Biologists that disagree with the concept that man evolved from the Apes or that all complicated life forms evolved from singles cell animals, then that is what should be taught in Biology class.

Science education is too important to the future of this country to be left to amateurs or to be fiddled with by politicians with different agendas. If our children are not educated in the basic concept of evolution then many will eventually lose Biology based jobs to Indians and Chinese students that were.
Not for nothing, but at one time 99% of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 03:20 PM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
It hits rock eventually. Not my field, but through the magic of Google we learn that there is a large flow of water through the outer layer of the ocean floor, and thus there is an equilibrium set up - water moves down through the rock and at a certain depth, the heat from the earth's core drives it up again - or sideways, or whatever.

There are certain environmental challenges to mapping this flow - like it's friggin' cold down there and the pressure is enough to squeeze you into a lump the size of Karl Rove's heart.

Good question, though.
Okay, you had me up to the very end. That last lie gave you away.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 03:22 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
spanky. i love you, and you know that. But those guys think you're an idiot. So when you say I lose that means I win.

183-12
Okay, now this is just plain stupid.

179-16.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Would you find me the post where I said there was 1? Any?

189-12
No. And if you think that anybody here is going to accept a denial on your part that the existence not just of god, but of A God, is a necessary implication of your argument, then I'm assessing another penalty stroke.

179-17.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 03:37 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Not for nothing, but at one time 99% of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.
And if they had had science class at that time, then you can believe that's what would have been taught in it. You see, the thing that separates science from religious orthodoxy is that science recognizes its fallability and adjusts its teaching to reflect new knowledge. Science also acknowledges its gaps.

Religious orthodoxy does neither. That's why the Church tried to excommunicate Gallileo and Copernicus but the scientific community welcomed the work of Gregor Mendel.

sgtclub 10-22-2005 03:42 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
And if they had had science class at that time, then you can believe that's what would have been taught in it. You see, the thing that separates science from religious orthodoxy is that science recognizes its fallability and adjusts its teaching to reflect new knowledge. Science also acknowledges its gaps.

Religious orthodoxy does neither. That's why the Church tried to excommunicate Gallileo and Copernicus but the scientific community welcomed the work of Gregor Mendel.
I'm the last person that wants religion taught in schools (or anywhere else). I'm just quibbling with the idea (not yours) that because the scientific world believes it, then it is a fact.

Spanky 10-22-2005 04:17 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Not for nothing, but at one time 99% of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.
Yes that is true. I never said that 99% of the scientists were always right. There is just no other way to do it. If the scientists don't decide what we teach then who? My guess is that the scientists are wrong much less of the time than the politicians.

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2005 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
No. And if you think that anybody here is going to accept a denial on your part that the existence not just of god, but of A God, is a necessary implication of your argument, then I'm assessing another penalty stroke.

179-17.
All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12

Gattigap 10-22-2005 06:43 PM
Spanky in Da O.C.
 
I'm in. Lemme know.

From Spanky's stories, though, I'm expecting to see a serious entourage surrounding him, though. More silicon than in the valley.

Spanky 10-22-2005 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12
The purpsoe of education is not to make people feel good or bad about their religion, the purpose is to educate. In science class that is to teach the truth the best the science community knows it at the time. If someone's religion beliefs are in conflict with what is taught in science class, that it tough. If the science education curriculum was designed around what didn't conflict with religious ideas the classes would last about two seconds.

It is not OK to teach religious ideas to students in public schools (that is state sponsored religion), but it is OK to teach scientific ideas that conflict with religious ideas. Thre is no rule against the government establishing science just against the government establishing a religion.

The Puritans (whom I am decedent from so I can rag on them all I want) wouldn't approve but they set up a theocracy and burned witches. The Puritans democrat and tolerance credentials are highly suspect.

taxwonk 10-22-2005 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12
Hank Chinaski, Post # 3543:


Quote:
What is different between laying out in school 1 the primordial ooze theory, which is untestable and really just hindsight reconstruction to explain something non-creationists want explained and 2 maybe God started stuff and it evolved from there and he came back occasionally to prod (i.e. Organ systems start).
179-17.

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2005 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Hank Chinaski, Post # 3543:
I did not saying I believe in either. I merely ask if the evidence of both isn't about equal. I'm right and you're wrong, but worse you who are arguing with manifestly don't know what you're talking about. You talk science as your god and scientists as your priests.

205-12

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2005 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The purpsoe of education is not to make people feel good or bad about their religion, the purpose is to educate. In science class that is to teach the truth the best the science community knows it at the time. If someone's religion beliefs are in conflict with what is taught in science class, that it tough. If the science education curriculum was designed around what didn't conflict with religious ideas the classes would last about two seconds.

It is not OK to teach religious ideas to students in public schools (that is state sponsored religion), but it is OK to teach scientific ideas that conflict with religious ideas. Thre is no rule against the government establishing science just against the government establishing a religion.

The Puritans (whom I am decedent from so I can rag on them all I want) wouldn't approve but they set up a theocracy and burned witches. The Puritans democrat and tolerance credentials are highly suspect.
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17.

"The path of the
righteous man is beset on all sides
by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of
charity and good will, shepherds
the weak through the valley of the
darkness. For he is truly his
brother's keeper and the finder of
lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee
with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison
and destroy my brothers. And you
will know I am the Lord when I lay
my vengeance upon you."

Now I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker 'fore you popped a Guernica or Gilligan post on his ass.

But I saw some shit last year made me think I should be nicer. Now I'm thinkin', it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And my flaming ability is the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could by you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that.

But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin' Spanky. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

Spanky 10-22-2005 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17.

"The path of the
righteous man is beset on all sides
by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of
charity and good will, shepherds
the weak through the valley of the
darkness. For he is truly his
brother's keeper and the finder of
lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee
with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison
and destroy my brothers. And you
will know I am the Lord when I lay
my vengeance upon you."

Now I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker 'fore you popped a Guernica or Gilligan post on his ass.

But I saw some shit last year made me think I should be nicer. Now I'm thinkin', it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And my flaming ability is the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could by you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that.

But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin' Spanky. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.
Don't hold back on account of me. I can take it. But, Hank, don't take the side of voodoo and psuedoscience. Evolution is a fact.

The question of whether or not their is intelligence design to the universe is a subject for philosophy class. And just because science has figured out how the sun rises, does not mean there is no God, and just as because man has figured out where we came from biologically does not mean there is no God.

Biology is for Biology class, and there is no room for discussion of supernatural forces in Biology class.

Hank Chinaski 10-23-2005 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Don't hold back on account of me. I can take it. But, Hank, don't take the side of voodoo and psuedoscience. Evolution is a fact.

The question of whether or not their is intelligence design to the universe is a subject for philosophy class. And just because science has figured out how the sun rises, does not mean there is no God, and just as because man has figured out where we came from biologically does not mean there is no God.

Biology is for Biology class, and there is no room for discussion of supernatural forces in Biology class.
Spanky, if you've been reading my posts you know I don't question evolution where it has evidence. The dispute comes where it's pure conjecture, because coincidentially that is where it could be god instead. and I'm not arguing either is right. I'm just saying your beloved scientist don't know either.

Would you like your kids to be taught global warming is a fact?

Secret_Agent_Man 10-23-2005 12:25 AM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Critical Greenland ice cap found to have been thickening over the last eleven-year period.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Scientists blame global warming.
But at least the scientists are measuring the ice cap. The creatonists are looking for a cite in Revelations.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski 10-23-2005 12:28 AM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But at least the scientists are measuring the ice cap. The creatonists are looking for a cite in Revelations.

S_A_M
W.A.T.E.R.

Secret_Agent_Man 10-23-2005 12:31 AM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I love you too Hank, but don't you agree that the PB has become to civil? Is this partly my fault? Everyone is being nice to eachother and it is making the board a lot less fun to read.
Waiting for Fitzgerald, while Slave and Penske whistle past the graveyard.

Also, take the Board's tempertaure starting about 3 months before an election.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski 10-23-2005 12:34 AM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Waiting for Fitzgerald, while Slave and Penske whistle past the graveyard.

Also, take the Board's tempertaure starting about 3 months before an election.

S_A_M
W.A.T.E.R.

Secret_Agent_Man 10-23-2005 12:37 AM
Who knew?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
W.A.T.E.R.
Right back atcha bro'.

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man 10-23-2005 12:38 AM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
W.A.T.E.R.
Hank, I think you need to take a vacation or something. Chill.

Your shittiness quotient has risen notably.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski 10-23-2005 12:42 AM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hank, I think you need to take a vacation or something. Chill.

Your shittiness quotient has risen notably.

S_A_M
dissent. I'm nicer. You just need to think about why that is true:D

taxwonk 10-23-2005 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Spanky, if you've been reading my posts you know I don't question evolution where it has evidence. The dispute comes where it's pure conjecture, because coincidentially that is where it could be god instead. and I'm not arguing either is right. I'm just saying your beloved scientist don't know either.

Would you like your kids to be taught global warming is a fact?
As I said earlier, your argument by necessity posits the existence of God, and by the way you posit it, you implicitly assert the existence of one God to the exclusion of other belief systems.

Now quit trying to poison and destroy my brothers, or I shall have to strike down uopn thee with great vengeance and furious anger, for thou art being self-righteous and smug whilst thou art full of shit.

taxwonk 10-23-2005 11:52 AM
The Road to Damascus
 
From the NYT:

Quote:
"The report concludes there is probable cause to believe that high-level Syrian officials were involved in the Hariri assassination, that there's clear evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the Syrians, failure to cooperate," Mr. Bolton said. "That is what the Security Council needs to take up in a serious way."

Asked if sanctions against Damascus were under consideration, he said only, "We're considering still a range of options."

Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, after arriving in Birmingham, Ala., with Ms. Rice, said of the findings, "you cannot leave a report like this on the table."

"We have to consider it and consider it actively," he said.

He and Ms. Rice were careful not to recommend any specific possible actions against Syria.

Penske_Account 10-23-2005 04:05 PM
Oh good lord...irony intended.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by cheval de frise
I've got nothing against TM. I think we both want the same thing at the end of the day -- passions (not to mention frustrations) just ran high during one thread. (Is this the politics board? I guess it is. Good lord 2X).

Can't really stick around very long, but it's good to 'see' y'all -- C
2 all around. Ever the voice reason Chevy. By the by, ran into another old pal the other day, KenPornStarr says hi!

;)

Penske_Account 10-23-2005 04:17 PM
hold the ketchup
 
I have been off since Thursday and I am boycotting the concept of catching up because I am sure the looney left has soiled the board in typical due course and in honour of the babyjesuschristsuperstar's day of rest and worship I refuse to indulge such evil.

I do have a new sig line though.

Peace.

Carry on.

Hank Chinaski 10-23-2005 04:54 PM
hold the ketchup
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
the concept of catching up
the best anti-Kennedy post ever will be missed


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 AM.
Page 91 of 126 « First 41818990 91 9293101 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com