Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 7

Yes. Let's see.

The theory of relativity, or simply relativity, encompasses two theories of Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.[1
Wikipedia.org

NO REFERENCE TO SCIENCE THERE, JUST THEORY!

Poor Einstein. Relativity theory is a load of shit. Turn off the nuclear reactors and forget about the atomic bombs. They're just "theories."

'Camp' David. If you don't know what 'theory' actually means to scientists, don't try and prove stupid schoolboy crap to people who do.

Oh, I'm in a good mood, 'Camp' David.

Theory of classical mechanics.

Just 'theory'. A load of shit. Poor Isaac Newton.

Atomic theory.

Poor atoms.

Cell theory.

Poor organic life.

Systems theory.

TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER. There's no 'science' in its development or programming.

Are they really back to this again? Words are hard. Especially when there's more than one definition.

Fuck it. The illiterates win. Words may only have one definition now. The definition of "theory" as given here by wikipedia:


no longer can be used with the word theory. We must kowtow to the ignorant masses who can't handle a word having more than one meaning. The new word that will have the above definition is:

Scientruth.


Now, let's all teach our kids the scientruth of evolution, the scientruth of general relativity, the scientruth of special relativitiy, atomic scientruth, cell scientruth, systems scientruth, et cetera.

English is going to get way more complicated when words can only carry one meaning, but apparently that's what fundies want. Oh, in the spirit of uncomplicating the language, the word "god" was already in use before you guys started that whole christian thing. Sorry, you need a new word. May I suggest "invisifriend"?

Well MJ I don't seem to see a reply from you on this question so I thought I'd try again.

No reply from you either Jazzy? You both neatly side stepped this direct question.

I addressed your question before you asked it.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=156

I love that it's now an article of faith among the left that the Moon Landing was a great thing that defends the country's high tax regime.

Because years ago, leftists used to deride the space race as a waste of money driven by uber-patriotism and the demonization of cold war enemies. They used to say that tax money should be spent on bread and not circuses, that primarily benefitted private contractors in the employ of the country's military-industrial complex.

Nice to see you guys coming around. Tell Cheney I said hi when you see him on the golf course.

Well that's refreshing that you don't believe in the literal 6,000 years as some here seem to. Bravo!

Funny having actually lived through that era ( I was 16 when they landed in 1969 ) I don't seem to remember leftists deriding it. I never felt that way and think the moon landing as one of the most important events of the 20th century. Even if the intial push was partially fueled by competition from The Soviet Union.

I do agree with one thing however that Obama's idea of getting private industry involved is a good idea. Like most things in history space travel won't really take off ( no pun intended ) until that happens in a big way. And yes there's a lot of money to be made out there ( more than just tourists ) we just need to find a less expensive way to do it. That will happen in time.

You were the one who totally jumped the gun and started this ridiculous thread about how a very well established scientific theory is somehow "debunked" by one terribly reported on paper.

You wrote a very misleading title for the thread and the paper you cited was already debunked as unethical science journalism. As linked to earlier, here's the article: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...utm_medium=rss

duh!!!!!

I guess you didn't read the memo @ 217?





GONE AGAIN---BYE BYE

You almost make this sound like it's a problem or something.

Great comeback.

Well at least someone noticed!

At this time , unfortunately, I have to agree. Darwin is wrong. If he was right religious people could not exist. They are unfit to further mankind, indeed they are a huge obstacle to intellectual development and should have perished a long time ago.

Ahhh yes...one more example of civilized, tolerant, respectful and enlightened discourse from the left.

I need to start a collection...maybe a book someday.

I'm so heartily sick of reading this sort of stuff about the Evil Uncivilised Left.

It's like you're completely blind to the comments on any Fox News article, or to the people who take signs with pictures of Obama dressed up like Hitler on marches, or any other of the abundant examples you can find in eight seconds on google.

Uncivilised discourse is a problem of the polarity in the American body politic. Right wing people are just as bad. From where I'm watching, actually, they seem worse.

So can this shit about 'the left.' It's just voluntary blindness. Your own 'side' is completely disgusting too.

Wait, so people living in the nineteenth century could do this, but Christians are derided for believing that an advanced intelligence capable of creating the entire universe, could create the Earth in 6 days?

Well then do your best to bring it to an end.



Woooaaa there Sparky! Do you see the mistake you just made? I'll spell it out very clearly for you. You assumed that because I made an observation about idiotic comments from someone apparently on the left that I'm completely unaware of similar kinds of things on the right.



I agree.



Perhaps so. Perhaps not.



I have no doubt you see it that way.



Only if I was actually saying that this problem was limited to the left.

The real reason I like to point this out from our friends on the left is that those on the left of the "liberal" or "progressive" persuasion often seem to smugly imply they are above this fray and don't lower themselves to such uncivilized and rude rants.

I'll buy you supper if you write "Obama is not a communist, or a socialist, but a bit of a wimpy centrist in the European social democratic tradition with far more integrity than courage."

Obama's integrity is suspect, at best.

He promised to get lobbyists out of Washington D.C. and make government more transparent. Those are both policies I wholeheartedly support, which he has completely ignored.

In addition, he promised not to raise ANY taxes on ANYONE making under $250,000. Then he raised taxes on cigarettes (ironic, since he smokes) and tanning salons.

Is Gitmo closed yet? No.

Are we really out of Iraq? No. So-called "combat operations" have ended (in accordance with Bush's plan), but we still have 50,000 troops in harm's way in Iraq.

The list goes on and on.

Disclaimer: an attack on Obama's policies is not support for George W. Bush's. In just about every way that matters, Obama is expanding upon the big government globalist policies of his predecessor.

I'll buy my own dinner TYVM.

Obama does not appear to be a communist but certainly has both socialist and fascist tendencies (as did Bush BTW) at least so far as his policies are concerned.

Yeah, the text goes from left to right. So yes it's from the left.

Imitation is flattery, thank you!

I wouldn't quit your day job.

Come back to reality.

Your nation needs you.

Is this your reality in which Obama's policies are not part socialist and part fascist or is it actual reality where they are?

Obama's policies ARE part socialist. That's what's better about them than policies that are NOT part socialist.

Socialism when effected in conjunction with capitalism is an entirely GOOD thing. When you neoMcCarthyists start to understad thet, we can finally start to see progress toward a higher level of global standard of living. Which is the point. Standard of living. Not lopsided "wealth". Not GNP. But happiness.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Try again.





Who is a neo-McCarthyist? Who is hauling people before special committees to testify? Who is using the threat of government action to ruin people's lives?



As long you continue to make these false and arbitrary and undefinable distinctions between "wealth" and "standard of living," we're never going to make any progress in your education.

Are you going to report us to that special email address Obama set up?

"wealth" IS "standard of living"

Shhhh. Don't tell tonton. He still thinks they are different things.

I don't know, but I suspect that his thinking is based in the idea that "wealth" is all about little green pieces of paper with portraits of dead presidents on them.

Will you please think for a moment about what you're actually saying.

The president of the world's largest economy and the world's most expensive, advanced military is a fascist? (Or 'has fascist policies', in the formula you seem to prefer.)

This notion is utterly preposterous. It is embarrassing to discuss it seriously.

One would think that the idea of the president of the world's largest economy and the world's most expensive, advanced military being a fascist would raise

-some discussion outside of America
-some alarm outside of America
-some protests outside of America

in the press, among the people, among governments, and cause

-a fundamental re-structuring of global political alliances, from the United Kingdom onwards.

Please. Think.

Alliances between the USA and the UK, and Russia, and the EU, and India, and countries in sub-Sahahran Africa are BETTER than they were before under George Bush. There is no fear for Americans. No-one is writing articles discussing the plight of American citizens under the new fascist regime, or what this fascist regime means for global politics, and the fear and danger it has brought.

That is because the notion is retarded.

No-one outside a pants-pissing right wing minority in America believes the Barack Obama is a fascist, or "has fascist policies", or whatever formula of words you may like to use that lets you call your president a fascist and get away with it.

If he were, the geo-political world would be in total uproar. It isn't. Everyone really likes Obama. Even Medvedev. Even our right wing government here in the UK. Even Angela Merkel, the centre-right president of Germany.

The idea is retarded. It makes no sense at all. It is the kind of nonsense you're supposed to say around election time to frighten people who don't know what "fascism" actually is. You're not supposed to believe this embarrassing, ridiculous notion yourself.

No, wealth is not "standard of living."

The standard of living in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, for example, exceeds that of the United States. They have longer holidays. They have far more generous benefits. The unemployed are paid at 100% of their usual salary for the first few months of their unemployment. There is zero poverty in these nations.

And yet they are not wealthier than the United States. Their economies are smaller.

This is because they spend their revenue differently, and invest in public programmes differently, and tax differently, and the wealth is spread around more by evil communist-fascist-Nazi-Jihadi-Stalinist-Hitlerian-Bolshevik-atheist-yogic-eco-fascist-America-hating-socialist-sterilise-retards-and-white-people economic policy. There is greater equality in wealth. No poverty, no street crime, excellent social support and public amenities, and so on, make for a better standard of living.

Wealth and "standard of living" are not the same thing.

I have.



Economically speaking, yes he is. Partly. When he's not being a socialist.

Let me put it into a term that might make it easier for you to understand: Corporatist.

Economically-speaking, fascism is the "merger" or "partnering" of corporations and government. It usually involves the socialization of losses while retaining the privatization of profits. It is one side of the so-called "third way." Sometimes though it looks more like "corporate socialism" (and it is.) These are different terms to describe basically the same things. Fascism retains the appearance of private ownership with the interlocking control of government.

With this understanding, you cannot seriously watch all of the shenanigans that have happened with Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care and health insurance industry, etc. and not see that he (and Bush before him) is (economically) part fascist and part socialist. As is this entire country's economic structure: part fascism, part socialist, still some free-market left too.



No it isn't, and if you would think, you would realize that.







So? You actually consider this a valid argument that he isn't?



OK



I don't think you actually know what fascism is, economically-speaking. I suspect you don't know what socialism is, economically-speaking either which is why you don't think he is also part socialist.

P.S. The reason I formulated the statements the way I did (i.e., "fascist policies" and "socialist policies") was to actually be more precise in what I was saying. It is the actions (in the form of policies), regardless of how he might feel or what he might think or how he (or you or others) might label himself or what he says...that make the difference.

<sigh> Another one. \