Trumps Friday Night Tweets

[Bouncer]

Read this great editorial by Les Zaitz, an excellent reporter here in Oregon. This is in a small newspaper in Eastern Oregon, an economically depressed region of the state. He puts it in powerful perspective in terms of what people living in the area make.

Read it.

EDITORIAL: High-flying feds could use Malheur County gut check – Malheur Enterprise




Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

What was the vote count for that particular county? Obviously Oregon is a blue state but I wouldn't be surprised if that county voted trump. That's the sad thing, trump has convinced the lower middle class (usually not the brightest people) that he somehow relates to them, he's there guy.

By the way, the estimate is now $260,000 for the whole Pence football stunt...

[Scrumhalf]

Read this great editorial by Les Zaitz, an excellent reporter here in Oregon. This is in a small newspaper in Eastern Oregon, an economically depressed region of the state. He puts it in powerful perspective in terms of what people living in the area make.

Read it.

http://malheurenterprise.com/editori...nty-gut-check/




Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

so trump thought it would be a good idea to fly Pence from cali to Indianapolis and go to a football game where he knew players would be kneeling and then leave the game before it even starts because the players were kneeling. then he gets back on the plane and flies back to cali. complete bs stunt to call more attention to the issue all on the tax payers dollar. the whole thing including flight and security is estimated to have cost around 100K... all for a little political stunt. rotten to the core this administration.

[Scrumhalf]

Not disagreeing with that evolution doesn't prove or disprove design.

I think you've got that backwards. Science has a very important concept called falsiifiability. What that means is that theories in science have to be falsifiable. Which means that any theory in science has to be testable. Einstein's theory of relativity is testable. In fact, it has been tested thousands of times and found to be true. Now, there may be a test tomorrow that produces data to invalidate relativity, in which case scientists need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new theory, but the bottom line is that these tests exist.

There are two problems with the intelligent designer hypothesis.

One, it is not required. All observed facts can be explained by evolution, and there are ample tests that validate evolution. There is another scientific principle called Occam's Razor. It means that in order to explain some new fact of observation, the likely explanation is the one that makes the fewest number of new assumptions. And the intelligent designer idea fails Occam's Razor.

Second, intelligent design is not falsifiable. There is no scientific test or experiment that one can do to validate or invalidate intelligent design. For this reason, ID belongs, not to the realm of science, but to that of faith. The two are mutually incompatible.

By the way, Carl Sagan covers this idea in his book "A Demon Haunted World." Fantastic book, belongs on the shelf of every house. He uses the idea of an invisible dragon to make his point, as only Sagan can. Watch this video of someone reading the relevant section from the chapter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E

[Bouncer]

yea i mean the fact is, we still don't have a clear answer on exactly how the first life on earth started. we understand evolution pretty well but evolution is a completely separate issue from the origin of life.

something else I still struggle to understand. the earth was once a ball of fire and rock. the explanation of how we got all our water doesn't make sense to me. I just can't picture comets and asteroids full of ice being enough to give us all the water we have, I can't make it add up in my brain.

traps, you mention flat earth once and I will go ballistic.

[TrapsBrah]

Good read b

[Bouncer]

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. However, analysis of some other texts written by Darwin, and of the correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues demonstrates that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms. As shown by notes from the pages he excised from his private notebooks, as early as 1837 Darwin was convinced that “the intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable”. Like many of his contemporaries, Darwin rejected the idea that putrefaction of preexisting organic compounds could lead to the appearance of organisms. Although he favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was not possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life.

What did Darwin think about the origin of life? His opinion seems to have changed over time from his original remark in the 1861 3rd edition of The Origin of Species «…it is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life», which he reiterated in a letter he mailed to his close friend Joseph Dalton Hooker on March 29, 1863, in which he wrote that «…it is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter». But yet, in a now famous paragraph in the letter sent to the same addressee on February 1st, 1871, he stated that «it is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living being are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sort of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Darwin’s opinions on the origin of the first organisms thus varied somewhat during his life, but never lead to the dramatic shift that could be implied by reading only the two paragraphs included. Indeed, a careful examination and critical reading of his public and private writings shows that what appear to be contradictory opinions on the problem of the emergence of life are the result of texts read out of context, sometimes maliciously, as shown by some publications of creationist groups and advocates of the so-called intelligent design.

Darwin was a meticulous writer who kept detailed diaries and excellent records of his extensive correspondence. This allows a detailed examination of the development of his ideas, a task facilitated not only by examining the books and articles he published during his lifetime, but also by the online availability of his correspondence and notebooks, including the pages that Darwin himself excised from them but which have survived.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

[TrapsBrah]

You do realize that Darwin has nothing to do with how life started, right? He never claimed his theory explained the origin of life. People always are intellectually dishonest in conflating evolution and the origin of life to support their arguments. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Not disagreeing with that evolution doesn't prove or disprove design.

[Scrumhalf]

You do realize that Darwin has nothing to do with how life started, right? He never claimed his theory explained the origin of life. People always are intellectually dishonest in conflating evolution and the origin of life to support their arguments. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TrapsBrah]

Wait. Teaching of intelligent design and that evolution didn't happen is a liberal plot? Not sure where you are going with this.

To add, I didn't bring up any liberal/conservative stuff. I'm just focusing on why the average American citizen's grasp of history, geography and science is absolutely abysmal, and how that has real world consequences, since he/she is also part of the electorate.

"Evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible"

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell.) The number that was found was 1 over 1040000.244 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.245

[Scrumhalf]

You and your wife sound like pretty amazing parents.

Thanks. It's the hardest thing I have ever done. But you only get 1 shot to do it right.

[Turbo3000]

The key in my opinion is to identify what they are interested in and keep them engaged.

My older son is very math-oriented, so we got him a lot of puzzles and fractal-related stuff, as well as books like the Penrose the Mathematical Cat series, etc. Also, we had membership to the Portland science museum and we would go there all the time. In the museums, we would talk about the scientific principles behind the various exhibits, and also do science experiments at home. Once he got older, we watched Cosmos and other documentaries. All the time we would talk about how the universe was formed and how it evolves,etc. etc.

My younger son is less into math but he loved paleontology when he was growing up. We got him several palentology encyclopedias and he would go over them from cover to cover and gain almost an encyclopedic knowledge of evolution. Of course, documentary watching was a big part of evening activities and we would visit natural history museums, and talk about the evidence for evolution and so on. Nature documentaries wwere big, because they are really interesting and they cover topics like ecoology, conservation and so on. These days, he is really into birds and wants to be a biologist when he grows up, so we go birding every weekend and we talk about different types of birds and how they have adapted, about bird migration and habitat conservation and so on. He is growing up to be a splendid young man who thinks deeply about how humans are affecting bird habitat and how that in turn affects other species.

All along the way, we focused on critical thinking. Of how evidence needs to be used, about the scientific method and so on.

Textbook knowledge you learn in schools is not how you learn to think. If people assume their kids are going to learn to think at school, they will be mistaken. The real learning happens at home. Luckily, we live in an age where information is just a click away. There is a nearly infinite amount of information on the web, through Netflix, etc. etc.

You and your wife sound like pretty amazing parents.

[Scrumhalf]

I agree. I think the parents are a huge problem. They expect the school to do all of the work. Teach and raise their kids.

The key in my opinion is to identify what they are interested in and keep them engaged.

My older son is very math-oriented, so we got him a lot of puzzles and fractal-related stuff, as well as books like the Penrose the Mathematical Cat series, etc. Also, we had membership to the Portland science museum and we would go there all the time. In the museums, we would talk about the scientific principles behind the various exhibits, and also do science experiments at home. Once he got older, we watched Cosmos and other documentaries. All the time we would talk about how the universe was formed and how it evolves,etc. etc.

My younger son is less into math but he loved paleontology when he was growing up. We got him several palentology encyclopedias and he would go over them from cover to cover and gain almost an encyclopedic knowledge of evolution. Of course, documentary watching was a big part of evening activities and we would visit natural history museums, and talk about the evidence for evolution and so on. Nature documentaries wwere big, because they are really interesting and they cover topics like ecoology, conservation and so on. These days, he is really into birds and wants to be a biologist when he grows up, so we go birding every weekend and we talk about different types of birds and how they have adapted, about bird migration and habitat conservation and so on. He is growing up to be a splendid young man who thinks deeply about how humans are affecting bird habitat and how that in turn affects other species.

All along the way, we focused on critical thinking. Of how evidence needs to be used, about the scientific method and so on.

Textbook knowledge you learn in schools is not how you learn to think. If people assume their kids are going to learn to think at school, they will be mistaken. The real learning happens at home. Luckily, we live in an age where information is just a click away. There is a nearly infinite amount of information on the web, through Netflix, etc. etc.

[Turbo3000]

Typically the more educated you are the more liberal you become which is why your perception is that all college professors are liberal. Once you understand the fundamentals of science and are able to look at statistics and data and make sense of it, the more liberal you appear to be with your positions especially to those who are uneducated and think climate change is a hoax for example.

The dumbing down of America is due to those who look down on college educated professors and refuse to learn anything about science, statistics, or even history and think God has all the answers instead. That’s the baby boomers bouncer is referring to.

And lol Turbo schools are mostly funded from states or even more specific counties in that state. Federal is a pretty small percentage. Own a home? Pay property taxes? What do you think those property taxes are used for? You are just one of those people who blanket blames the govt for everything. How about we just get rid of all govt completely? Then what do we end up with? No roads no bridges no military no laws no regulated food supply. We basically just become Afghanistan. Stuck in the stone ages. That’s what you want?

Sup fake bitch.



And you sound like the type that thinks the precious government cares about you and can solve all of your problems.


And to show I'm not an asshole. You are right about the education budget, I was wrong. I thought more federal money was pumped into the system.

[Keiser]

Funny most teachers are educated by their professors in collage...it's my understanding...those are mostly liberal.gee...imagine that...the dumbing down of america

Typically the more educated you are the more liberal you become which is why your perception is that all college professors are liberal. Once you understand the fundamentals of science and are able to look at statistics and data and make sense of it, the more liberal you appear to be with your positions especially to those who are uneducated and think climate change is a hoax for example.

The dumbing down of America is due to those who look down on college educated professors and refuse to learn anything about science, statistics, or even history and think God has all the answers instead. That’s the baby boomers bouncer is referring to.

And lol Turbo schools are mostly funded from states or even more specific counties in that state. Federal is a pretty small percentage. Own a home? Pay property taxes? What do you think those property taxes are used for? You are just one of those people who blanket blames the govt for everything. How about we just get rid of all govt completely? Then what do we end up with? No roads no bridges no military no laws no regulated food supply. We basically just become Afghanistan. Stuck in the stone ages. That’s what you want?