The reason they don't teach what you say is because it is false. It simply isn't true that evolution is "a broken, flailing ship being tossed from its course every five years" or that evolution is popular because it appeals to atheists. You have to know something about evolutionary biology to understand why the former is false
Go ahead and ask five evolutionsts to describe how life began on this planet, and you'll hear two or three different stories (most popular, of course, is lightning bolt striking primordial soup). It's constantly changing. It should change, of course, as data is presented to get a more accurate picture, but it shouldn't be heralded as the answer (or even scientific) when they can't claim any basis of observation as to what actually happened. Until then, it's a ship caught in a storm without a rudder.
As for your "evolution is not popular because of atheists" I ask you to go through any evolution topic and NOT run into the straw man "in a bathrobe." As Dawkins suggested, evolutionism eventually leads to athism. Atheism eventually leads to nihilism. If you're not there yet, you haven't thought it through enough. The religions that have embraced evolution will either have to divorce themselves from it in the coming years, or will be exposed as the farces they are for pronouncing something that, in turn, devours them.
Ridiculously enough, "evolutionism" is rated as a more important scientific discovery than genetics, cellular biology, DNA, quantum mechanics, relativity, atomic science, electronics and computer science, and any other scientific discovery or invention of our time. It's rated number one. Yes, that's like saying that having a painted car is more important than having a car with an engine. It's like saying it's more important to have an airplane with blue seats than an airplane with wings. There is no way that evolution even benefits mankind in any way, shape, or form (genetics, cellular biology, and study of DNA certainly do, but they're not EVOLUTION anymore than biology is phrenology.) yet, "scientists" around the globe say it's so important. Why?
The concept that evolution is the most important scientific discovery in recent times is so unbelievably stupid, hardheaded, and obtusely-blind that it calls into question the ability to reason among all the atheists who fly it as their banner. That's right, kids, Scooby Doo pulled the mask off of the big, smart scientist costume, and there was an idiot inside who needed something to vindicate his hatred of others' beliefs. Sadly enough, if there weren't enough idiots in that costume that this applies to, it wouldn't have been rated number one... Disagree with me? Re-read the paragraph above this one again, and answer the question yourself -- but certainly take your time to answer it. I suggest at least taking a walk, making a sandwich, cleaning your house, or actually researching evolution before you decide on your response. The question deserves the time it takes to come up with a reasonable answer, not based on any knee-jerk reaction or momentary emotional explosion. It's nothing personal, it's just an observation.;)
Mainly because they don't only want to teach their children this stuff but they want to force public schools to teach every child this stuff. It is a slippery slope. Once they teach "the controversy" what else will they want to tech?
Maybe they'll even teach something like "Evolution is mostly popular because many atheists think it can discount the first two pages of the bible, thereby disproving god forever"
Or that, chemically and mathematically, life on Earth only has a 1:1,200,000,000,000,000,000 chance of happening the way evolutionists predict? That it's six trillion times more likely that life started with an asteroid colliding with earth containing life, than the Atheist non-god shooting lightning bolts at wet rocks to develop, program, and animate DNA, that it might begin compiling itself as the most intense lines of code ever written in an attempt to blindly, unknowingly, coincidentally construct the most powerful, intelligent, coherent machines in the universe, run by compact, concise, reasoning processors and dangle the illusion of sentience in front of these animated batches of inanimate chemicals like a carrot on a string -- in order to keep them recompiling itself (DNA) at sustainable rates? You realize how stupid that actually sounds?
Is that what they'll want to teach? That science doesn't have all the answers yet, and it's current "best theory" is a broken, flailing ship being tossed from its course every five years -- that every kid in that classroom has a chance of figuring out a more likely scenario, scientifically, than evolution's claim of how the genesis of life on our planet happened.
They start teaching that, the truth, instead of seperate theories and stories AS truth, and kids might actually be interested in science again.
But I doubt that's what they want to teach. A man can sometimes only dream...
Good job on reading the article. You know, the part where every other paragraph other than what was cut for the summary points this out and how to defend against this very thing.
You know, they never draw that conclusion in the article. They just say that some attacks originating from a given country may be initially controlled from a different country. They don't go into ip masking/spoofing or any of that... Why would they want to expose the limits to their services when this article was written in an attempt to sell something?
So scientists managed to figure out that the ice cap melted, and that's why it disappeared? I hope they all got their Scooby Snacks for solving this crack case! What's next on their agenda? "Scientists discover that when parents say 'Putting the dog to sleep' they are actually KILLING the dog!"
Well, hold on there. Are you saying that you don't believe players respond to visual rewards?
If that were the case, H-games wouldn't exist.
However, running through an obsidian tower drenched in green light fighting green goblins for twenty minutes just so you can move on to an obsidian tower drenched in blue light fighting blue goblins is neither reward nor incentive to keep moving. We're not in the days when a palette-swapped imp saves precious space on a cartridge so you can include an entire town's dialog. Nowadays, it's merely an admittance to their lack of originality and their insufficient design.
Actually, they said that players who have forced themselves through a difficult dungeon to reach a new area deserve the greatest sense of accomplishment a game designer can possibly bestow: A palette swap.
I wish I was dumb enough to make up something like this.
And yet your side rejects aid for the poor, supports wars, and is absolutely intent on removing any sort of accountability from business executives of the harm their actions cause to our finances and our environment.
Conservativism rejects mandatory aid for those the government may choose to define as "the poor." Voluntary aid is preached and expected amongst all members of the conservative circles.
and BOTH major political parties currently focus their power to remove criminality from business executives. Both parties thrive on corporate contributions, and will throw babies in front of trains to save big businesses. Uncorrupted members of both liberal and conservative sway (even the extremists) want to see these men burned at the stake... but you don't heat pools on ideals, so the powerful greedy will continue to protect big business who will donate at the expense of the people who might donate.
Despite being composed of nothing but twigs and bailing wire, the patent and name for DDR3 has been bestowed upon the worst-ever designed memory chip in the recorded history of mankind. Its designer was quoted as saying "It may not be quick, but she's universal! She can plug herself onto any motherboard with enough sap and doornails. Best to mix the sap up with potater bugs for conductivity though!" Critics have been silent so far, because no one can figure out how in the hell the shoddy chips manage to actually store data (albeit at a snail's rate of transfer). The creator answers their questions with a wink "Maybe I did done use snails. You'll nevar know!"
It did not, and as far as I know cannot grant immunity to government officials who violated the 4th amendment.
Nevertheless, that provision wasn't necessary if they hadn't been telling the truth of the matter that the government had demanded they use the illegal surveillance. If they were simply scratching for a scapegoat and had no evidence the government had demanded it from them, they would have been left high and dry.
I am not a lawyer, but some evidence is already a little glaring in this case:
People complain about government surveillance sponsored by telecoms
Telecoms say "Government made us do it!"
Everyone looks at government and says "You can't do that."
Government passes a law that says "Now we can, and we're adding in a provision to say you can't complain about when we did before we passed the law!"
I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times if I must: The constitution was written by, for, and in behalf of terrorists, traitors, and criminals of their time. Possible terrorism is not an excuse to violate the constitution, as that is what it was written to protect. The illegal surveillance and retroactive immunity both violate the constitution.
This is like calling the police about a shooting, and when they get there, they find the dead body burned to ashes. When they ask "Why did you burn the body?" you say "Because if I burn the body, you can't arrest me for shooting him! You have no evidence!"
You really need to post a link. I have to see this.
You don't "really need a link" to attend a university course in evolutionary biology.
1. Look up university of your choice
2. Enroll in course
When I tell you that you obviously haven't studied it, I wasn't referring to reading something online. I was telling you to actually formally study it with someone you can address your questions to.
If you want to skip this process (After all, who wants to look dumb by asking the emperor why he looks naked?), pick up "The Blind Watchmaker", as I'm sure any Richard-Dawkins-fellating philosopher will tell you is the greatest literary work of our time. Read on how DNA calculates, predicts, economically manages inherent "bio-credits", plans, adapts, and self-motivates to construct massive biological machines and places illusions into the inanimate elements that compose those chemical reactions -- telling them the best ways to breed and prepare itself for further replication, because each construct will last only a few dozen years. If you don't think DNA is the all-knowing, mind-reading, future-predicting shit after reading this book, you don't agree with the most popular explanation of evolutionary theory available. You are not a "scientist"
Ban everyone under the age of 18 from playing online. That way, I can finally play online without some prepubescent screaming in my ear about how much of a n00b I am for not playing 16 hours a day.
I mean... err... so the kids won't get exposed to violence and sex and become criminals...
Yeah, makes much more sense to think an omnipotent being (who's origin we shall not discuss) created us in order to serve him and telepathically announce our eternal servitude to him so we can live forever.
You just described an evolutionist's understanding of DNA.
So everyone making less than six figures are simply the worst possible investors, and guys like you who make millions are investment geniuses?
No, some of the worst investors are (def not a complete list):
The Government
People who think they deserve a shiny car with chrome wheels and a 52" HD TV when they don't have a job that can even pay for it.
The elderly who think they're entitled to retirement at 65 -- having gone 65 years without managing their cashflow well enough to save a single penny.
When I say "The Government" I speak of the same government whether it be run by either of the 2 most popular political parties. Republican? Democrat? Neither of them know how to buy more than a dime with a dollar. Both are in this for their own power, influence, and wealth. Both are adept magicians at making an enormous amount of the GDP disappear.
And to those who say "Well, you should learn to exploit the tax system!" -- That's complete rubbish. The very fact it's expected at high income levels to evade taxes to keep a respectable fraction of your entitlement shows just how pathetic and screwed up the tax system has become.
I hate Ayn Rand just as much as the next non-adolescent, and think the misfortunate should receive some relief, if not from friends then from the community... but they're not entitled to it. They don't deserve it. It should be given, and not forcibly taken. Idealistic? Reprobate? I don't care what you call it.
I think most people would prefer to be in a tax bracket that gets taxed like that and keep the rest, rather than where they are now.
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!
Slashdot Mirror
The reason they don't teach what you say is because it is false. It simply isn't true that evolution is "a broken, flailing ship being tossed from its course every five years" or that evolution is popular because it appeals to atheists. You have to know something about evolutionary biology to understand why the former is false
Go ahead and ask five evolutionsts to describe how life began on this planet, and you'll hear two or three different stories (most popular, of course, is lightning bolt striking primordial soup). It's constantly changing. It should change, of course, as data is presented to get a more accurate picture, but it shouldn't be heralded as the answer (or even scientific) when they can't claim any basis of observation as to what actually happened. Until then, it's a ship caught in a storm without a rudder.
;)
As for your "evolution is not popular because of atheists" I ask you to go through any evolution topic and NOT run into the straw man "in a bathrobe." As Dawkins suggested, evolutionism eventually leads to athism. Atheism eventually leads to nihilism. If you're not there yet, you haven't thought it through enough. The religions that have embraced evolution will either have to divorce themselves from it in the coming years, or will be exposed as the farces they are for pronouncing something that, in turn, devours them.
Ridiculously enough, "evolutionism" is rated as a more important scientific discovery than genetics, cellular biology, DNA, quantum mechanics, relativity, atomic science, electronics and computer science, and any other scientific discovery or invention of our time. It's rated number one. Yes, that's like saying that having a painted car is more important than having a car with an engine. It's like saying it's more important to have an airplane with blue seats than an airplane with wings. There is no way that evolution even benefits mankind in any way, shape, or form (genetics, cellular biology, and study of DNA certainly do, but they're not EVOLUTION anymore than biology is phrenology.) yet, "scientists" around the globe say it's so important. Why?
The concept that evolution is the most important scientific discovery in recent times is so unbelievably stupid, hardheaded, and obtusely-blind that it calls into question the ability to reason among all the atheists who fly it as their banner. That's right, kids, Scooby Doo pulled the mask off of the big, smart scientist costume, and there was an idiot inside who needed something to vindicate his hatred of others' beliefs. Sadly enough, if there weren't enough idiots in that costume that this applies to, it wouldn't have been rated number one... Disagree with me? Re-read the paragraph above this one again, and answer the question yourself -- but certainly take your time to answer it. I suggest at least taking a walk, making a sandwich, cleaning your house, or actually researching evolution before you decide on your response. The question deserves the time it takes to come up with a reasonable answer, not based on any knee-jerk reaction or momentary emotional explosion. It's nothing personal, it's just an observation.
Mainly because they don't only want to teach their children this stuff but they want to force public schools to teach every child this stuff. It is a slippery slope. Once they teach "the controversy" what else will they want to tech?
Maybe they'll even teach something like "Evolution is mostly popular because many atheists think it can discount the first two pages of the bible, thereby disproving god forever"
Or that, chemically and mathematically, life on Earth only has a 1:1,200,000,000,000,000,000 chance of happening the way evolutionists predict? That it's six trillion times more likely that life started with an asteroid colliding with earth containing life, than the Atheist non-god shooting lightning bolts at wet rocks to develop, program, and animate DNA, that it might begin compiling itself as the most intense lines of code ever written in an attempt to blindly, unknowingly, coincidentally construct the most powerful, intelligent, coherent machines in the universe, run by compact, concise, reasoning processors and dangle the illusion of sentience in front of these animated batches of inanimate chemicals like a carrot on a string -- in order to keep them recompiling itself (DNA) at sustainable rates? You realize how stupid that actually sounds?
Is that what they'll want to teach? That science doesn't have all the answers yet, and it's current "best theory" is a broken, flailing ship being tossed from its course every five years -- that every kid in that classroom has a chance of figuring out a more likely scenario, scientifically, than evolution's claim of how the genesis of life on our planet happened.
They start teaching that, the truth, instead of seperate theories and stories AS truth, and kids might actually be interested in science again.
But I doubt that's what they want to teach. A man can sometimes only dream...
Even before then, a lot of animals started using these tools called "Eyes" that help us read the light signature of an item to figure out what it is.
I know that there are only a few folks in the Human race that would even know how to read the things
That sounds like just the kind of challenge that can motivate any slashdotter into becoming an armchair mathemagician.
inability of over-the-air viewers to receive new digital signals
Yeah, that is kind of a major problem.
Only for astronauts.
Q: What did one CERN Scientist say to the other after they collided their first particles?
A: What's the matter?
Good job on reading the article. You know, the part where every other paragraph other than what was cut for the summary points this out and how to defend against this very thing.
You know, they never draw that conclusion in the article. They just say that some attacks originating from a given country may be initially controlled from a different country. They don't go into ip masking/spoofing or any of that... Why would they want to expose the limits to their services when this article was written in an attempt to sell something?
...If you're serious about ending terrorism, you have to engage the enemy dipomatically and address the conditions that lead to it. ...
What historical evidence are you using to support this idea.
When France talked Germany out of invading in the late 1930's.
So scientists managed to figure out that the ice cap melted, and that's why it disappeared? I hope they all got their Scooby Snacks for solving this crack case! What's next on their agenda? "Scientists discover that when parents say 'Putting the dog to sleep' they are actually KILLING the dog!"
Well, hold on there. Are you saying that you don't believe players respond to visual rewards?
If that were the case, H-games wouldn't exist.
However, running through an obsidian tower drenched in green light fighting green goblins for twenty minutes just so you can move on to an obsidian tower drenched in blue light fighting blue goblins is neither reward nor incentive to keep moving. We're not in the days when a palette-swapped imp saves precious space on a cartridge so you can include an entire town's dialog. Nowadays, it's merely an admittance to their lack of originality and their insufficient design.
Actually, they said that players who have forced themselves through a difficult dungeon to reach a new area deserve the greatest sense of accomplishment a game designer can possibly bestow: A palette swap.
I wish I was dumb enough to make up something like this.
And yet your side rejects aid for the poor, supports wars, and is absolutely intent on removing any sort of accountability from business executives of the harm their actions cause to our finances and our environment.
Conservativism rejects mandatory aid for those the government may choose to define as "the poor." Voluntary aid is preached and expected amongst all members of the conservative circles.
and BOTH major political parties currently focus their power to remove criminality from business executives. Both parties thrive on corporate contributions, and will throw babies in front of trains to save big businesses. Uncorrupted members of both liberal and conservative sway (even the extremists) want to see these men burned at the stake... but you don't heat pools on ideals, so the powerful greedy will continue to protect big business who will donate at the expense of the people who might donate.
With computers, you do not purchase the ability to use your system as a DVD player simply by purchasing hardware
How the hell is that remotely legal? Does the FTC know about this?
Despite being composed of nothing but twigs and bailing wire, the patent and name for DDR3 has been bestowed upon the worst-ever designed memory chip in the recorded history of mankind. Its designer was quoted as saying "It may not be quick, but she's universal! She can plug herself onto any motherboard with enough sap and doornails. Best to mix the sap up with potater bugs for conductivity though!" Critics have been silent so far, because no one can figure out how in the hell the shoddy chips manage to actually store data (albeit at a snail's rate of transfer). The creator answers their questions with a wink "Maybe I did done use snails. You'll nevar know!"
It did not, and as far as I know cannot grant immunity to government officials who violated the 4th amendment.
Nevertheless, that provision wasn't necessary if they hadn't been telling the truth of the matter that the government had demanded they use the illegal surveillance. If they were simply scratching for a scapegoat and had no evidence the government had demanded it from them, they would have been left high and dry.
I am not a lawyer, but some evidence is already a little glaring in this case:
People complain about government surveillance sponsored by telecoms
Telecoms say "Government made us do it!"
Everyone looks at government and says "You can't do that."
Government passes a law that says "Now we can, and we're adding in a provision to say you can't complain about when we did before we passed the law!"
I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times if I must: The constitution was written by, for, and in behalf of terrorists, traitors, and criminals of their time. Possible terrorism is not an excuse to violate the constitution, as that is what it was written to protect. The illegal surveillance and retroactive immunity both violate the constitution.
This is like calling the police about a shooting, and when they get there, they find the dead body burned to ashes. When they ask "Why did you burn the body?" you say "Because if I burn the body, you can't arrest me for shooting him! You have no evidence!"
It could very well be a Star!
It will be if it wins the next American Idol!
... that's no moon ...
We've already established that. It's a planet.
You really need to post a link. I have to see this.
You don't "really need a link" to attend a university course in evolutionary biology.
1. Look up university of your choice
2. Enroll in course
When I tell you that you obviously haven't studied it, I wasn't referring to reading something online. I was telling you to actually formally study it with someone you can address your questions to.
If you want to skip this process (After all, who wants to look dumb by asking the emperor why he looks naked?), pick up "The Blind Watchmaker", as I'm sure any Richard-Dawkins-fellating philosopher will tell you is the greatest literary work of our time. Read on how DNA calculates, predicts, economically manages inherent "bio-credits", plans, adapts, and self-motivates to construct massive biological machines and places illusions into the inanimate elements that compose those chemical reactions -- telling them the best ways to breed and prepare itself for further replication, because each construct will last only a few dozen years. If you don't think DNA is the all-knowing, mind-reading, future-predicting shit after reading this book, you don't agree with the most popular explanation of evolutionary theory available. You are not a "scientist"
Online videogames are terribly dangerous!
Ban everyone under the age of 18 from playing online. That way, I can finally play online without some prepubescent screaming in my ear about how much of a n00b I am for not playing 16 hours a day.
I mean... err... so the kids won't get exposed to violence and sex and become criminals...
I guess I must have missed the part on telepathy and omniscience.
Then you either have not studied evolution from an evolutionist, or never asked questions when you had the chance...
Yeah, makes much more sense to think an omnipotent being (who's origin we shall not discuss) created us in order to serve him and telepathically announce our eternal servitude to him so we can live forever.
You just described an evolutionist's understanding of DNA.
So everyone making less than six figures are simply the worst possible investors, and guys like you who make millions are investment geniuses?
No, some of the worst investors are (def not a complete list):
When I say "The Government" I speak of the same government whether it be run by either of the 2 most popular political parties. Republican? Democrat? Neither of them know how to buy more than a dime with a dollar. Both are in this for their own power, influence, and wealth. Both are adept magicians at making an enormous amount of the GDP disappear.
And to those who say "Well, you should learn to exploit the tax system!" -- That's complete rubbish. The very fact it's expected at high income levels to evade taxes to keep a respectable fraction of your entitlement shows just how pathetic and screwed up the tax system has become.
I hate Ayn Rand just as much as the next non-adolescent, and think the misfortunate should receive some relief, if not from friends then from the community... but they're not entitled to it. They don't deserve it. It should be given, and not forcibly taken. Idealistic? Reprobate? I don't care what you call it.
In any case, you should be outraged. </soap>
I think most people would prefer to be in a tax bracket that gets taxed like that and keep the rest, rather than where they are now.
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!
This is the problem with truth : Everything most people know to be true is wrong
JASTERBOBAMEREEL IS A WITCH! BURN HER!!!