Trump Acquittal Thoughts?

Hypothesis a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Evolutionary tree is a hypothesis, not a theory.

 

How can you say science is a fable when you use scientific progress every day? You're either typing on your phone or a computer. Religion didnt make those inventions happen

 

The article you linked is about something called Lateral Gene Transfer (LGT). The gist is that genes can spread from organism to organism (bacteria for example). This wasn't known in the time of Darwin of course. “Community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation,” Darwin wrote. There was to be an actual Tree Of Life whose “ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups.” LGT throws a wrench in this idea by allowing for the exchange of genes between species instead of relying on the mutation of genes only. I read nothing about overturning the Theory Of Evolution.

That's what I get out of it.

 

There are multiple theories on the mechanism of change in evolution and this is questioning one of them; it isnt questioning the theory of evolution as a whole and it certainly isnt proving it a fable.

Edit, so what dice ^ said

 

Even if there are some scientific fables, that's merely saying science isn't always correct. It doesn't make it a religion. And as already explained to Beach Ball evolution theory is not a fable, it's based on evidence found in reality. The theory itself is not fact. We can now leave it behind in this political thread. Make one specificly about it if you want to discuss it in more detail.

 

I get irritated when others attempt to edit what I say, or attempt to manage my life simply because they think they are correct or more correct that me. Under normal circumstances, I don't accept marching orders. Since I love you so much Asmo, I'll consider what you said. Please understand that I too on occasion make a political point .

 

I'm not giving you marching orders. You sincerely considering what im trying to convey is all im asking for.

 

I thought you said your academic field was history?

 

srgreene - Your assertions that people should attend to their own financial security were heeded by me over 40 years ago. I've never "trusted" or depended in Social Security or anything other than myself. I've been investing by dollar-cost averaging in several mutual funds for over 40 years. But that doesn't mean I have no right to expect some return from all my paycheck deductions over my career. I also have advised our kids to do the same - invest on your own and don't depend on Social Security, or your employer's retirement plans 100% either. After all - Republican President George H.W. Bush signed a law allowing corporations to raid their employees' pension funds and claim they're "over-funded." The money went back into company coffers, and the headline case was a very large timber & paper company in the Pacific Northwest. When several news services interviewed employees of that company, they said instead of getting around $3000 per month from their pensions, they'd be getting about $350 per month. Company promises made - company promises abandoned & ignored. Does that seem fair to you?? Just a yes or no please. No talking around in circles trying to rationalize that action.

And as for being frugal - I still have a flip-phone - by choice - because the flip cover protects the screen from damage in my career which isn't the most delicate for a cell phone. I also drive a 2003 vehicle by choice. It's been paid off for years and it still runs great because I take care of it. I feel no need to be "trendy" with my vehicles. Instead of making more vehicular payments, I invested that money - as did my wife - and we chose to invest regularly so we have no worries in retirement. We have both done well in our careers, and our frugal tendencies have aided our security. That DOES NOT make me a Republican !!!!!! I'm more of a centered registered voter with a tilt toward fairness, justice, and environmental concerns (thinking of our kids' and grandchildren's future health). I won't say legal, because legal is a term that shifts with the wind as political whims dictate for expediency. ( think rules change as needed for ass-covering. ) That maneuvering is NOT justice. That's called CORRUPTION.

On the environmental front - it used to be that Republicans were also concerned about our earthly environment. Richard Nixon signed some noteworthy environmental laws that wouldn't stand the chance of a snowflake in hell of even being considered today. Maybe today's Republicans think their kids and grand children are immune to unsafe drinking water, polluted air, climate change, rising sea levels (which will shrink the amounts of available dry land - it's physics thing), polluted oceans (less healthy fish & seafood), 1 million acres of rain forest being cut each year (rainforests contribute to water filtration, water vapor in the atmosphere - thus climate - and produce much of the earth's oxygen supply.) If the earth's climate dangers don't worry people enough to care about their children's and grandchildren's future health and survival - well …………….. I suppose all those "bible-thumpers" will end up being judged for their indifference and lack of concern for their fellow humans. I'm also a believer in God, but I kind-of believe in that "love thy neighbor thing", which means I ought to be concerned for their futures.

 

Yes, doesn't mean i know everything in history or understand your assertion that islam gave the US Obama. Care to explain?

edit: maybe you were joking. Thing is: you regularly make a serious point with such unnuanced comments about islam.

 

I would say he managed to do quite a bit of damage to this republic.

"The rules" according to the left and to MSM (but I repeat myself) are very different under Trump than they were Obama. Just as one example of that highly partisan, to the extent of being hypocritical, from that paragon of virtue Adam Schiff, who claimed Trump "demands his enemies be investigated and prosecuted”. I don't know that he demands they be prosecuted, although he has urged investigations that could lead to prosecution.

Now I happen to think Trump is far too tweety and I wish he'd put a cork in it sometimes. He has made his own AG's job more difficult. I question his firing of Lt Col Vindman, even though he does need an NSA team in whom he has confidence But Schiff & Co were unconcerned when Obama, employing rather more subtle means (subtlety not being Trump's long strong suit), used the powers of the state to persecute his political rivals (see link below). For example:

"In 2015, the Department of Justice suddenly decided to move forward with criminal charges against (Sen Bob) Menendez on a five-year-old case. What happened that made the Obama administration suddenly decide to go after Menendez? According to Washington insiders, the decision was politically motivated, since the criminal charges against Menendez came soon after he spoke out against Obama regarding his plan to normalize relations with communist Cuba and his nuclear deal with Iran. No one believed that to be a coincidence."

Or consider various tax audits (which Nixon could not stimulate) including one of Dr Ben Carson:

"who criticized Obama during his speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast. It was an embarrassing moment for Obama, and when Carson refused to apologize after the Obama White House demanded an apology, Carson was audited by the IRS. Does anyone really think that was a coincidence?

Oh, but there’s more. A cancer patient who appeared on Fox News to discuss how Obamacare cost him his health insurance was audited by the IRS shortly after his interview aired. Also, individual donors to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign found themselves the target of IRS audits, some within weeks of donating."

But, of course,

"Nothing defines using the government to target political enemies more than Obama’s spying on Donald Trump’s campaign. We know it happened. We know that this spying was justified using a bogus dossier funded by the Hillary campaign. We know an FBI lawyer altered evidence. What began as a means to undermine Trump before the 2016 election ultimately became a means to undermine his presidency. ... The Inspector General’s investigation proved political bias in the FBI’s investigation of President Trump’s campaign."

If those examples don't constitute "abuse of power," even though they may all have been "legal" (other than the ginned up FISA Court applications), then nothing does. But the Dems, the left, MSM, that was all A-Ok.

The hypocrisy of people Schiff, Pelosi, HuffPo is boundless, and it stinks. Such hypocrisy is a clear marker of Trump Derangement Syndrome.


5 Times Barack Obama Used the Government to Attack His Political Enemies

 

You and I share a concern for environmental issues. It is my greatest objection to Trump, and, should Bloomberg or Klobuchar be nominated, I could see myself voting Democrat, in large part on that account (uh, so long as Hillary is not a heartbeat away from becoming POTUS).

I think many Republicans part ways with Trump with respect to environmental issues, although he has attracted many to the GOP brand who see no reason for concern. It may surprise you, but Republicans too breathe air and drink water!

 

If Obama transgressed to the point of illegality, that would be and would have been up to republicans to charge him . Why didn't they? I don't know if Obama was a particularly good president but self admitted sexual predator is a lousy human being--a crooked motherfucker and does not give a shit about anyone other than himself and those that kiss his fat ass. Over 16,000 lies so far. What kind of a human acts like that?

 

Read this part. It is a hypothesis.

 

The repubs are starting to see the writing on the wall concerning the environment. As in todays newspaper, his "ädvisors "are now concerned that they are going to lose the votes of young people because of their money first, environment second (or lower) attitudes. They will now try to come up with some bullshit to fool those voters until after the election.

 

As a (long ago) biology major, I am a little surprised to see NAS refer to "the theory of evolution". There isn't a theory of evolution of the species. Darwin seem to attribute essentially all evolution to "survival of the fittest". Well even though species evolve, there are other factors. Of course, Darwin knew nothing of modern genetics, and his theory was a major leap in understanding in its day. Today, we have far more sophisticated tools that can "drill down" to the molecular level and so gain a deeper understanding of the fantastically complex process of evolution.

 

and none of them are theories, You are truly obtuse,

 

Why obtuse? I for one think you could benefit from a good look in a mirror, BBLB.

 

Yes, I read it all...including this:

"Our purpose here is to show that the debate owes its intensity and protracted nature to an unresolved and largely unrecognized difference in what phylogeneticists think the TOL is supposed to represent [italics my own]. For many of its supporters, the TOL is a biological fact (a reality outside of our own minds), first established nearly 150 years ago by Darwin, and needing only elaboration (16). For those who question it, the TOL is a scientific hypothesis (a heuristic epistemological model), forcefully and eloquently articulated by Darwin but not yet proven to be true."
​

Again, nothing about Evolutionary Theory itself, just the TOL thing. And even the experts haven't agreed on what they're talking about yet. I'll let them decide, however long it takes.

 

My church- Church of the Nazarene- does have a certain convoluted history with respect to evolution. Most Nazarenes probably could be call "creationists". However, the Church does not make any particular belief about how creation unfolded into an article of faith. So it has no problem accepting that people will look at the creation of the universe and the development of life on Earth in different ways. I for one consider it undeniable that life on Earth evolved, and that does not cause me to question my faith. The mechanism by which God effected His plans is, in my mind, a very secondary issue from a religious perspective.