Trump Acquittal Thoughts?

He doesn't need proof... He's VG

 

Sorry … I though you planted and harvested green beans?

 

You are a pest.

 

It's funny that the question of whether or not people give authority to science with the same fervor religious zealots give authority to God became a question of whether or not evolution is true.

Just look at this thread. I criticize science and I'm automatically accused of throwing a fit. So many of you think anything outside the realm of science is garbage, and you have the gift of technology to prove it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, I guess.

What I see is a generation of people so impressed with their own technology, so giddy at what they have done, that they dismiss outright and are antagonistic to the bigger questions they haven't given much thought, and that they claim, therefore, aren't worthy of much thought.

The truth is that, when it comes to the ultimate nature of reality, every last one of us is totally and completely in the dark.

 

It's still a theory--one Cambrian rabbit away from the scrap heap. So far, no rabbits. But it's a very good theory--so far, supported by massive amounts of evidence from multiple disciplines. Scientists don't talk about "only a theory"--although some theories can be untested and some can be refuted.

 

Phrase of opportunity here is "shouldn't have to". The reality of your statement is that when it is time to retire or draw disability funds, there are no guarantees of instant approval. None. Wish I could paint this picture with fluffy white clouds and rainbows, but I'm not a sugar-coater.

I plan to earn some form of living until I take my last breath. I do not rely on the SS system being solvent in 22 years when I retire.

I do not disagree with your assertions. I think you - like many Americans - are fed up with legalized theft. This is why I cannot stress enough to vote.

 

I'm thinking storm must have been saying this tongue in cheek?

 

It's a tragic flaw

 

I think Darwin was on to something, but eastern religions were all saying an evolutionary relationship existed between all animals and humans. When I was in college, I learned the mouse, sloth, bear, and human all had similar feet. Any Native Arapaho will tell you there is very little difference in a foot print of a human or a bear. The heel of the bear is narrower than a man, but it takes a trained eye to spot that on the trail. If you look at the feet of a Vole, you'll see the similarities. My Apache friends tell me about the movement of animal spirits, and so do my Hindi-Bengali friends. The Athabaskan people tell me the spirits fly through the forest after they leave a body, and can re-enter other people or animals during the breathing process. So, while Darwin was on to something in the context of western knowledge, other before him knew lots and bunches, and gobs more.

 

Give it up. You're just wrong, in terms of the way "theory" and "hypothesis" are used in science.
"In science, a hypothesis and a theory differs in that a hypothesis is a conjecture based on empirical observation or theoretical derivation yet unproven or by any experimental work, and that a theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested by many researchers and supported by strong evidence. Evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested, supported by overwhelming evidence, and can be used to explain natural phenomenon very well."
Why is evolution called a theory and not a hypothesis - Answers
Evolution Resources from the National Academies
Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence | Live Science
As for taking offense when others suggest a lack of education, you don't seem inhibited about saying Mel is "slow on the uptake and unwilling to stray from her own narrative." I can understand why Mel would become exasperated when you continue to assert something that reflects such a basic lack of understanding, and compound it by calling your erroneous version the right one.

 

Wow, where did that come from?

Seriously, just about the best post you have ever done. Spot on

 

I'm just saying how I feel, living my truth.

 

I guess we'll soon get to the connection between all of this an Trump's acquittal--which unfortunately is neither a theory nor a hypothesis, nor science.

 

I've been holding back on this topic, but now will add theory after testing and documented results would be presented for peer review. Once it is verified by way of peer review, it becomes law. And the nexus here with regard to Trump's bogus acquittal is the term law. After November's election, the term Law is going to be at the forefront of American life.

 

Truly inspired!

 

Lolz, well, put it this way. Give us a definition of what Evolutionary Theory is. Or better yet, copy and paste what Darwin's original hypothesis was

The theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most tested in science. But it is also one of the most simplest, that has a logical out. Populations change as a result of ALL environmental factors....which include Jupiter's gravity, gravitational waves from twin black holes a couple galaxies away...everything

So the theory is; Everything's offspring isn't an exact copy because of everything else that exists

And yet if there are any processes on the molecular level that are purely random chance, the whole theory falls apart. Neutral theory of molecular evolution - Wikipedia

Just Saying "Evolution is a theory" by itself doesn't even mean anything, you are the one using the wrong wording

 

Go back to school.

 

Saying "evolution is a theory" is saying that it meets the established criteria for being a "theory" as that term is used in science. No more, nor less. It has a precise and well-established meaning, which I've given you. Not a big deal, but not chopped liver, and an advance over the erroneous concept offered in the post I was replying to. The theory of evolution says that existing populations evolved from pre-existing ones, by gradual processes that led to macro-evolution: change of one species into another. Macro-evloution assumes the addition of new genetic information to the existing genetic structure by process of variation and mutation, although Darwin didn't put it quite that way. The mechanism proposed by Darwin was natural selection. Your statement " And yet if there are any processes on the molecular level that are purely random chance, the whole theory falls apart" is puzzling. Most Darwinists think that purely random chance is the primary basis for producing genetic diversity, upon which natural selection acts to produce species change. Your link agrees that the "neutral" molecular theory is compatible with Darwin's theory, so your point seems obscure. Migration and genetic drift may also play a part. That, of course, is irrelevant. Your gobbledygook doesn't mean anything, and is an illustration of how a compulsive bored Aussie troll would argue about the time of day just to pass the time.