VP DEBATE TONIGHT

[hornadylnl]

When did you sign for my school loan?

When did I sign your lease? But I'm helping to pay for it which in turn allows you to go to school.

Do you want to buy the welfare queen's groceries so she can spend her own money on cigarettes and booze?

 

[Caleb]

When did I sign your lease? But I'm helping to pay for it which in turn allows you to go to school.

Do you want to buy the welfare queen's groceries so she can spend her own money on cigarettes and booze?

Question, how much do you suppose my rent would be if it were just a normal apartment? How much rent do you suppose I actually pay with my actual money I work for?

Thank you for insulting me and comparing me to a "welfare queen"

 

[hornadylnl]

Question, how much do you suppose my rent would be if it were just a normal apartment? How much rent do you suppose I actually pay with my actual money I work for?

Thank you for insulting me and comparing me to a "welfare queen"

You tell me.

Other 3 bedroom apartments in Columbus are at least $900 a month, most are close to $1400 a month unless you get one of those shady apartments with crappy managers(and awful neighbors you just can't trust).

So tomorrow at noon we get to look at a 4 bedroom appartments(just like the 3 bedroom, but with an extra room) and our rent will be $437 a month! Now that's what I'm talking about!!

 

[level.eleven]

So who defines what is and what is not "Scientific Theory"? The scientists that support ID, or the scientists that do not?

Since when is science "Majority Rule"? How many scientists throughout time were either ridiculed, or at the least thought wrong, who were later proven right? Galileo? Doppler? Goddard? Ohm? Tesla?

Even the Wright Brothers were called "The Lying Brothers." by Scientific American Magazine and the NY Times..

So who defines what is and what is not "Scientific Theory"?

Evidence. Observation. This is quite simple. There is a line of thinking amongst the tin-foil right/conservatives/Tea Party that scientists are part of a conspiratorial cadre. Nothing could further from the truth. Scientists love to argue. Proof is built into the profession.

Since when is science "Majority Rule"?

It isn't. Science if proof based. Again, a simple concept by those with knowledge of the discussion. No one who is a scientist rejects evolution.

 

[Caleb]

You tell me.

I don't live in Columbus, I live in nashville

 

[Roadie]

So who defines what is and what is not "Scientific Theory"?

Evidence. Observation. This is quite simple. There is a line of thinking amongst the tin-foil right/conservatives/Tea Party that scientists are part of a conspiratorial cadre. Nothing could further from the truth. Scientists love to argue. Proof is built into the profession.

Since when is science "Majority Rule"?

It isn't. Science if proof based. Again, a simple concept by those with knowledge of the discussion. No one who is a scientist rejects evolution.

You kind of avoided some of my points.. but I expected that. Many scientists rejected the works of the people I listed in my previous post, yet all of those scientists were proven wrong. The point is that there are a plethora of cases of scientists who bucked the majority, were laughed at, ridiculed, and their theories denounced as un-scientific, yet were actually correct. (do you understand my point now, or do I need to give more examples?)

"No one who is a scientist rejects evolution." Really? So now you are defining who is and is not a scientist as well? As pointed out above, being rejected is not what makes one "not a scientist". Just because they are not agreed with, many proponents of ID have the same level of qualifications, education, degrees, credentials etc as those who reject them.

Nice veiled insults, btw..

 

[Bunnykid68]

So who defines what is and what is not "Scientific Theory"?

Evidence. Observation. This is quite simple. There is a line of thinking amongst the tin-foil right/conservatives/Tea Party that scientists are part of a conspiratorial cadre. Nothing could further from the truth. Scientists love to argue. Proof is built into the profession.

Since when is science "Majority Rule"?

It isn't. Science if proof based. Again, a simple concept by those with knowledge of the discussion. No one who is a scientist rejects evolution.

But yet, it is still just a theory. Always will be. Otherwise, why have the apes and monekys quit evolving, why cant we find big foot or anything else that is still trying to evolve into a human.

 

[level.eleven]

You kind of avoided some of my points.. but I expected that. Many scientists rejected the works of the people I listed in my previous post, yet all of those scientists were proven wrong. The point is that there are a plethora of cases of scientists who bucked the majority, were laughed at, ridiculed, and their theories denounced as un-scientific, yet were actually correct. (do you understand my point now, or do I need to give more examples?)

"No one who is a scientist rejects evolution." Really? So now you are defining who is and is not a scientist as well? As pointed out above, being rejected is not what makes one "not a scientist". Just because they are not agreed with, many proponents of ID have the same level of qualifications, education, degrees, credentials etc as those who reject them.

Nice veiled insults, btw..

You defined science for all of us. Skepticism, scientific method, evidence, bad theory thrown to the side. This is how science works. I avoided nothing, I don't have to. You defined science for us.

Now, perhaps you could link a unified theory of creation. I can save you some time, you can't. Which is why Christian mythology does not belong in a science classroom.

Honestly, it is rather sad, as a species, that we are still having this conversation. The previous sentence is me editorializing.

 

[level.eleven]

But yet, it is still just a theory. Always will be. Otherwise, why have the apes and monekys quit evolving, why cant we find big foot or anything else that is still trying to evolve into a human.

Is this honest inquiry? As I said to another fellow up-thread, calling evolution "just a theory" is a red flag. So is "why are there still monkeys?" Anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic at hand knows the answers to your unlettered questions. Please, do some research and avoid embarrassment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Is this honest inquiry? As I said to another fellow up-thread, calling evolution "just a theory" is a red flag. So is "why are there still monkeys?" Anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic at hand knows the answers to your unlettered questions. Please, do some research and avoid embarrassment.

He raised a perfectly valid question. If evolution is founded on truth why has it stopped?

I would also add the question of how the world as we know it could have been evolved over millennia when the same scientists will tell us that the extinction of any one life form has disastrous consequences when surely it did not all evolve out of a vacuum in concert to form a mutually supportive ecosystem.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Is this honest inquiry? As I said to another fellow up-thread, calling evolution "just a theory" is a red flag. So is "why are there still monkeys?" Anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic at hand knows the answers to your unlettered questions. Please, do some research and avoid embarrassment.

When did they come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a theory?

I do not get embarrassed simply because I am ignorant of something, I ask more questions.

 

[level.eleven]

He raised a perfectly valid question. If evolution is founded on truth why has it stopped?

It hasn't.

Further discussion requires a knowledge of speciation.

 

[Caleb]

It hasn't.

Further discussion requires a knowledge of speciation.

What does evolution, science, and hornadylnl attacking me have to do with the VP debate?

 

[level.eleven]

What does evolution, science, and hornadylnl attacking me have to do with the VP debate?

Republicans/conservatives reject evidence in favor of mythology. Ryan is a prime example.

 

[Caleb]

Republicans/conservatives reject evidence in favor of mythology. Ryan is a prime example.

Still has nothing to do with the debate

 

[level.eleven]

Still has nothing to do with the debate

Ryan was turned into a child during the debate. A "wonk" who couldn't name a single measure of his plan.

 

[Caleb]

Ryan was turned into a child during the debate. A "wonk" who couldn't name a single measure of his plan.

You mean after being interrupted 130+ times?

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Ryan was turned into a child during the debate. A "wonk" who couldn't name a single measure of his plan.

Not really, there wasn't much information at the VP debate at all. It was more rhetorical base energizing, while avoiding any major faux paus that would hurt the ticket.

As an independent, I found the debate very uninformative and I'm not alone in that assessment.

 

[level.eleven]

Not really, there wasn't much information at the VP debate at all. It was more rhetorical base energizing, while avoiding any major faux paus that would hurt the ticket.

As an independent, I found the debate very uninformative and I'm not alone in that assessment.

There wasn't much information because the conservative brain child, the policy wonk, when pressured, couldn't name a single loophole he would close. A true policy wonk would have had his bullet point list memorized.

I do agree with you about the debates from an information standpoint. The truth is these men spout numbers that we have no way of identifying as accurate or false. Hell, Romney used a "study" for "The Kirby Institute"* as fact in the Presidential debate. I laughed at the screen. Who? I would like a numbers-free debate. Lets talk philosophy.

 

[Roadie]

You defined science for all of us. Skepticism, scientific method, evidence, bad theory thrown to the side. This is how science works. I avoided nothing, I don't have to. You defined science for us.

Now, perhaps you could link a unified theory of creation. I can save you some time, you can't. Which is why Christian mythology does not belong in a science classroom.

Honestly, it is rather sad, as a species, that we are still having this conversation. The previous sentence is me editorializing.

I did no such thing, i asked you questions, YOU chose to read into those questions..

As for a "unified theory of evolution", there isn't one. There are small differences in details between scientists, theories, etc.

I also never mentioned "Christian mythology", I specifically mentioned Intelligent Design.

What is sad is that you are so close minded you are not open to any other possibilities than your narrow view. You ignore my point about ridiculed scientists because it does not fit into your argument.

Let's look at a few examples..

C.J. Doppler:
Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.) Doppler was finally proven right in 1868 when W. Huggins observed red shifts and blue shifts in stellar spectra. Unfortunately this was fifteen years after Doppler had died.

George S. Ohm:
Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal; called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. twenty years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance.

Fritz Zwicky:
Known in the astro research community as "Crazy Fritz," Zwicky investigated orbit statistics of galactic clusters in 1933 and concluded that the majority of mass had an invisible unknown source(Dark Matter) . He was ignored, dismissed as an eccentric.

Now, had you been around in, let's say, Doppler's day, you would have been one of the ones ridiculing him because his theories went outside "accepted" scientific theory..

Are you getting my point yet?