USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you want a handle on the loons who are now running the White House and successfully banned Saving Private Ryan this year.

   Any credibility you had left flew out the window with that comment. The white house, the FCC, and the evil religious horde had nothing to do with Saving Private Ryan not being aired in a few areas.  A few local networks around the country refused to show it as protest against being fined for the Janet Jackson, and Bono incidents this year.

  Well just one more time for the record...

ABC has aired Saving private Ryan twice over the past two years with out fines. The decision to not air SPR was decided as protest against the FCC by a few ABC affiliates around the nation. Case closed.  

     I swear Walker, the only voice you hear is your own and you know only what you hear.

Quote[/b] ]Was it appropriate to show uncut "Saving Private Ryan?" We say no.

"Saving Private Ryan" a brief list of its profanity:

at least 20 "f" words, 12 "s" words, 8 "a" words, 12 uses of G-damn, 3 of "Jesus", etc.

http://www.americandecency.org/

There in black an white,

Of course if the Republicans were to say they opose the religious right's attempts to subvert the American constitution then what you say would be reasonable.

I know!

Shinraden is a member of the Republican party lets get him to put together an online petition to say the Republican Party Abhor the attempts of Evangelical Christians to censor Television Programs and Film as it goes against the US constitution. Then get senior Republicans Such as George Bush and the rest of TBA to Sign it. That would certainly prove that TBA are not in the Evangelical Christians Pocket.

Kind Regard Walker

[sputnik monroe 102]

The organization you linked to isn't part of the government. It cannot levy fines or anything thing else. They had no part in the decision. The local channels decided not to show it.

I'm sure the pussies over at americandecency.org were happy that Saving Private Ryan didn't air. That being said they didn't have any control over the decision to show it either way. They aren't a government office and they have no jurisdiction.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]In Texas science is denied where biologist are told to teach Dawinism as theory when every qualified biologist knows it is fact.

Sorry i disagree there are a lot of HOLES in that theory if you havent noticed them yourself , i would still keep it as theory not a FACT especially the way the majority of the scientific community puts it across.

They are doing the right thing but under what motives? now thats questionable , i am basing my say on scientific facts.

Rubbish.

First of all, in science, everything is a theory, so don't let the name fool you. That the eart is spherical is a theory. That the Earth revlolves around the Sun is a theory. That

Incidentally there is far more solid empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution than of that the Earth is orbiting the Sun.

In layman terms, evolution is a fact. Giving students the idea that it is not to be trusted is as bad as saying that they shouldn't believe that the earth is round.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, in science, everything is a theory, so don't let the name fool you. That the eart is spherical is a theory. That the Earth revlolves around the Sun is a theory.

Theory? I see the sun rise and set everyday thats a fact not a theory , i dont give a damn what science says my common sense comes first.

Quote[/b] ]Incidentally there is far more solid empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution than of that the Earth is orbiting the Sun.

Like what? I see the earth rotating and revolving around the sun as a fact which i can experience everyday with the passing and going of seasons and day & night. I dont see something popping out of nothing or living organisms morphing and evolving things of which they dont even have any fore knowledge of .... i kinda tend towards common sense here so forgive me but how do you think human being or any living organism evolved a eye? How did something knew that in order to see it would need this this thing? WHEN THE CONCEPT of seeing is UNKNOWN to the origin?

I would definitely like to believe in evolution as a fact but there are various basic facts which stop me from doing so.

But then again this is for another topic maybe you'd like to start one on this? Its an interesting thing to learn and debate on but this isnt the place for it.

And i still believe it should be treated as a theory which isnt PROVED and has lot of holes to it when they are all proven WRONG then can it be treated as a fact and thats the general scientific method unless i am wrong.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]In Texas science is denied where biologist are told to teach Dawinism as theory when every qualified biologist knows it is fact.

OK, this statement just shows that you've forgotten the basics from your high school science courses. Nothing in science is a "fact". Even if a scientist's idea is supported by a great deal of scientific evidence, his idea still remains a theory. At the current moment, Darwin's Theory Of Evolution simply has not been contradicted, which is the key point. It's not so much proven (Little to nothing in science can be truely proven), as it is the best explanation for the data that we possess. Darwin's theory should be taught as a theory because it is exactly that: A theory.

Quote[/b] ] i kinda tend towards common sense here so forgive me but how do you think human being or any living organism evolved a eye? How did something knew that in order to see it would need this this thing? WHEN THE CONCEPT of seeing is UNKNOWN to the origin?

I would definitely like to believe in evolution as a fact but there are various basic facts which stop me from doing so.

Presumably because a creature with a mutation that allowed it to discern patterns in light would have faired better (Over time) than other, blind creatures.

[EiZei 0]

Like what? I see the earth rotating and revolving around the sun as a fact which i can experience everyday with the passing and going of seasons and day & night.

That's not what the prehistorical and medieval people used to think..

Quote[/b] ]

i kinda tend towards common sense here so forgive me but how do you think human being or any living organism evolved a eye? How did something knew that in order to see it would need this this thing? WHEN THE CONCEPT of seeing is UNKNOWN to the origin?

I would definitely like to believe in evolution as a fact but there are various basic facts which stop me from doing so.

Because something natural caused a mutation during those millions of years and presto, the thing that saw breeded more and overtook the obsolete species. What is so unbelievable about that?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Because something natural caused a mutation during those millions of years and presto, the thing that saw breeded more and overtook the obsolete species. What is so unbelievable about that?

MUTATION ?

You mean to say that this PERFECT human body is a result of a spark of several mutations which happened all along just to make us perfect the way we are today?

How can something evolve through HALF? How can a thing which is according to you evolving a eye know what to do what to look for? How to do it when it has no pre-fed knowledge of it? How can mutation trigger such a coincedence? How can soemthing SURVIVE with HALF the things it has according to evolution everything EVOLVED meaning slow steady state of change right? Over milllllionnnns of years? How can something keep on living with half a leg or eye or brain or heart trying to figure it what it needs more? THAT is simply devoid of common sense to me. We cant exist without a proper functioning body like in humans , if one of our body organs fail we die , liver goes we die , ehart goes we die so how the hell did we EVOLVE?

[Colossus 2]

I have read the posts but I still don't get it:

They banned Save Private Ryan?!

(OT)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have read the posts but I still don't get it:

They banned Save Private Ryan?!

(OT)

No. Majority of the ABC affiflates showed the unedited verison and a few decided to not to show. The few who did not show it were either protesting or were afraid of a backlash by people because the children would be expose to "realistic" violence and bad language. The few who did not show it are jackasses because nothing happen the last time it was showed unedited.

[EiZei 0]

How can something evolve through HALF? How can a thing which is according to you evolving a eye know what to do what to look for? How to do it when it has no pre-fed knowledge of it? How can mutation trigger such a coincedence? How can soemthing SURVIVE with HALF the things it has according to evolution everything EVOLVED meaning slow steady state of change right? Over milllllionnnns of years? How can something keep on living with half a leg or eye or brain or heart trying to figure it what it needs more? THAT is simply devoid of common sense to me. We cant exist without a proper functioning body like in humans , if one of our body organs fail we die , liver goes we die , ehart goes we die so how the hell did we EVOLVE?

Let's put it this way, when infinite number of monkeys keep typing with typewriters, they WILL produce the complete works of shakespiere. Most of the mutations will be harmful but when millions and millions of them happen something good WILL eventually come out.

I really don't see how this is more illogical than some all-powerful superhuman creating and designing everything and yet needing this small insignificant species to worship it/him/her/whatever.

Lot of the stuff that is taught to me at physics and chemistry class are just theories also, but they are the ones that have the most hard evidence. Why aren't religious people yapping about that too?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Want to know how they ban books that teach about evolution and the discoveries of Darwin?

http://www.probe.org/docs/textbooks.html

If religion is put to the same proof Darwin is I have no objections.

If books on evolution can be prevented from being placed in public schools in Texas because they are a contentious issue why can not the unproven theories about creationism and there for its text book known by some as the bible based in factual errors and contentious issues be banned from Texas schools?

Good for the goose is good for the gander.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, in science, everything is a theory, so don't let the name fool you. That the eart is spherical is a theory. That the Earth revlolves around the Sun is a theory.

Theory? I see the sun rise and set everyday thats a fact not a theory , i dont give a damn what science says my common sense comes first.

And your common sense would be wrong. The sun doesn't rise or set - it is Earth that revolves around its own axis. The sun is pretty much stationary in this context.

Common sense can be extremely misleading when it comes to nature.

Quote[/b] ]Like what? I see the earth rotating and revolving around the sun as a fact which i can experience everyday with the passing and going of seasons and day & night. I dont see something popping out of nothing or living organisms morphing and evolving things of which they dont even have any fore knowledge of .... i kinda tend towards common sense here so forgive me but how do you think human being or any living organism evolved a eye? How did something knew that in order to see it would need this this thing? WHEN THE CONCEPT of seeing is UNKNOWN to the origin?

What are you talking about? Evolution isn't dictated by what the individual wants or thinks he needs. It's dictated simply by the individual that survives and gets offspring.

Ok, apparently, I need to explain to you how evolution works. There are three main principles.

Crossover

or mating. When two individuals mate, their offspring gets a mix of their genetic code. Nothing sensational or new - you look a bit like your father and a bit like your mother etc

Mutation

Mutations are random defects that occur in the DNA. It can happen in many different ways, but the most common is when there's an error in the DNA self-replication. Mutations happen farily often, but most of the time the effects are either useless or hidden. BBC had a funny example just today:

Shell shock at two-headed tortoise [bBC]

Selection

Natural selection or the survival of the fittest is an extremely simple rule: if it survives, it survives. If an individual is fit for survival, it will get offspring that will get a part of its DNA. If the individual on the other hand does not manage to survive, well, then he won't get any offspring and that DNA line will die out. Hence bad mutations will be weeded out while good mutations lead to the evolution of the spieces.

There's nothing more to it, and the evidence is overwhelming. First of all, there's extensive fossil evidence. There are many examples of organisms similar to the ones we see today, and many that were radically different. It is quite easy to trace the development of of life on earth, starting with fossils of simple one-celled organisms to the flora and fauna we have today. (As an example, the development of the eye is very well documented. It started with a certain type of fish that had a very primitive light detecting sensor in the form of a collection of photosensitive cells.)

Second, there's the genetic evidence. A comparison of genetic sequences of organisms show that organisms that follow the same evolutionary line have a higher degree of sequence similarty than organisms that are more distant. For example, te human genome is 99% identical to our nearest relatives - the chimpanzees. For baboons that are further away from us and share "only" 80% of our genetic code.

In the very base, we have traits that are shared by all living organisms on earth - which shows our common origin. We all have DNA. The genetic mechanisms for replicating and processing the genetic code is the same, regardless if you are a tulip or an ape. There are millions of possible ways how these mechanisms could be built - it's completely arbitrary - but yet all living beings on Earth share them.

Quote[/b] ]I would definitely like to believe in evolution as a fact but there are various basic facts which stop me from doing so.

No offense ace, but from your post I can tell that you don't know the basic facts of evolution to begin with. But, go ahead, state your claims of which these basic facts

MUTATION ?

You mean to say that this PERFECT human body is a result of a spark of several mutations which happened all along just to make us perfect the way we are today?

How can something evolve through HALF? How can a thing which is according to you evolving a eye know what to do what to look for? How to do it when it has no pre-fed knowledge of it? How can mutation trigger such a coincedence? How can soemthing SURVIVE with HALF the things it has according to evolution everything EVOLVED meaning slow steady state of change right? Over milllllionnnns of years? How can something keep on living with half a leg or eye or brain or heart trying to figure it what it needs more? THAT is simply devoid of common sense to me. We cant exist without a proper functioning body like in humans , if one of our body organs fail we die , liver goes we die , ehart goes we die so how the hell did we EVOLVE?

This is what happens what education isn't taught in school

First of all, the human body is far from perfect. We have a lot of useless crap lying around in our bodies. The human wisdom teeth and appendix are common examples. We have a shitload of pseudogenes - i.e genetic code that is pure obsolete waste and completely inactive.

Second, you could never have had organisms with for instance half a lung. It wouldn't survive the embryotic stage, much less procreate to spread DNA that builds half a lung or any other important organ. Only improved versions survive. And that's the process that has happened over billions of years. And there's immense evidence of it. We have fossil evidence today of organisms that had more primitive organs. The development can be traced fairly well.

And third, while the mutations are random, they are restricted to a number of possibilities. Due to the laws of biochemistry (which are due to the laws of physics) only a finite number of possible combinations exist. The mutations are at the level of the genetic coding - the base pairs in the DNA. And that severely limits the number of possible variations.

[red oct 2]

n/m been explained.

[sanctuary 19]

//off topic

Let's put it this way, when infinite number of monkeys keep typing with typewriters, they WILL produce the complete works of shakespiere.

Sorry, nothing in the mathematical laws of probabilities can lead in such a conclusion that an infinite amount of monkeys using typewriters WILL produce the complete work of shakespeare.

You are forgetting that they have a chance to all infinitely fail to produce such a work.

So if something is not sure to 100% , it is not a fact (the WILL of the context of your sentence), but it remains a theory even if it is at 99,99999% sure.

//on topic

So the movie was cancelled in a day supposed to remember the veterans from the WW2.

And the movie was an hommage to the WW2 veterans ?

Something strange in the US medias , they allow a tons of stupidity , trash tv and whatever really bad tv , but will prevent an "on topic" hollywood movie due to some not polite words ?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, nothing in the mathematical laws of probabilities can lead in such a conclusion that an infinite amount of monkeys using typewriters WILL produce the complete work of shakespeare.

In a room with an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number will first press "Shift + t", and after that an infinite amount of the original infinite amount will press "h", and then an infinite amount of the resulting infinite amount of the original infinite amount will press "o", and so on until the complete works of Shakespeare are reproduced (Actually, the complete works of Shakespeare would be reproduced an infinite number of times ).

Quote[/b] ] a day supposed to remember the veterans from the WW2.

World War I, not World War II. That's why it was originally called Armistice Day .

Quote[/b] ]but will prevent an "on topic" hollywood movie due to some not polite words ?

Some parents might also object to their little kid seeing a depiction of a soldier with his intestines pouring out of his gut.

[denoir 0]

//off topic

Let's put it this way, when infinite number of monkeys keep typing with typewriters, they WILL produce the complete works of shakespiere.

Sorry, nothing in the mathematical laws of probabilities can lead in such a conclusion that an infinite amount of monkeys using typewriters WILL produce the complete work of shakespeare.

You are forgetting that they have a chance to all infinitely fail to produce such a work.

So if something is not sure to 100% , it is not a fact (the WILL of the context of your sentence), but it remains a theory even if it is at 99,99999% sure.

Actually, in the mathematical context, he is right, assuming that 1) the typewriters have all the letters that Shakespeare used and 2) that the monkeys are using all of the letters (randomly or otherwise).

Since the number of letters if finite, only a finite number of combinations exist - which include the complete works of Shakespeare . This means that a finite number of monekys, in a finite time will produce the works of Shakespeare. An infinite number of monkeys will produce it directly

Math is however not science. One of the elementary principles in science is that you can't prove a theory to be right - you can only prove it to be wrong.

As this approach is highly unpractical for applications, generally you pick the theory that preferably isn't contradicted by empirical measurements and that predicts nature better than any other theory available.

[bn880 5]

Actually, in the mathematical context, he is right, assuming that 1) the typewriters have all the letters that Shakespeare used and 2) that the monkeys are using all of the letters (randomly or otherwise).

Since the number of letters if finite, only a finite number of combinations exist - which include the complete works of Shakespeare . This means that a finite number of monekys, in a finite time will produce the works of Shakespeare. An infinite number of monkeys will produce it directly

So then, this infinite amount of monkeys could possiby write OFP2?

(just in good humor, just in good humor)

EDIT: You mean infinite number of monkeys?

[Akira 0]

Being that this is a politics not a science thread lemme say this...

Forget Texas is treating evolution as theory. They also just passed health textbooks that say homosexuality is an aboration and abstinance is the only way to go. Welcome to 1900.

[joltan 0]

Just one word about darwinism as a theory - of course it's a theory - and an outdated one as such, too. It's basic principles (stated by denoir above) still stand the test of time, but it has been constantly refined and we nowadays talk about evolution and how it occurs - and not darwinism (just like Newton's laws are valid only so far before you have to resort to more modern theories).

While Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense at least it's supported by evidence - unlike the biblical belief of creation. I'd rather go with such a theory any day than a belief that isn't founded in anything but the fantasy of some religious sects a few thousand years ago.

One more word: Evolution does not deny the possibility of god being behind the creation, just that it's obviously not as directly as stated in the bible and other religion's holy books. IIRC Stephen Hawking had quite a good discussion on this topic in his book 'A Brief History Of Time'.

Edit: spelling

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]There's a yellow rose in Texas, that I am going to see,

Nobody else could miss him, not half as much as me.

He cried so when I left him, it like to broke my heart,

And if I ever find him, we nevermore will part.

He's the sweetest little rosebud that Texas ever knew,

His eyes are bright as diamonds, they sparkle like the dew;

You may talk about your Clementine, and sing of Rosalee,

But the yellow rose of Texas is the only man for me.

When the Rio Grande is flowing, the starry skies are bright,

He walks along the river in the quiet summer night:

I know that he remembers, when we parted long ago,

I promise to return again, and not to leave him so.

He's the sweetest little rosebud that Texas ever knew,

His eyes are bright as diamonds, they sparkle like the dew;

You may talk about your Clementine, and sing of Rosalee,

But the yellow rose of Texas is the only man for me.

Oh now I'm going to find him, for my heart is full of woe,

And we'll sing the songs together, that we sung so long ago

We'll play the bango gaily, and we'll sing the songs of yore,

And the yellow rose of Texas shall be mine forevermore.

He's the sweetest little rosebud that Texas ever knew,

Hís eyes are bright as diamonds, they sparkle like the dew;

You may talk about your Clementine, and sing of Rosalee

[Acecombat 0]

Denoir i will start a topic on this later maybe here? If the mods ok it and then we can discuss this since this sint the right thread and i dont wanna get placebo angry .

[ralphwiggum 6]

my suggestion: don't bother. that thread will inevitably go sour.

[kerosene 0]

I read a long while ago that the story of creation comes from Babylon originally and is slightly changed, I never bothered reading before, into it but theres some intersting stuff here

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/babylonian.html

For many centuries, both Christian and Jewish theologians believe that the stories were given by God and thus owed their origins purely to divine inspiration. However in the nineteenth century, British archaeologists unearthed seven tablets containing the Babylonian [a] myth of creation known as Enuma Elish. Like the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, archaeologists have assigned the date of composition of this work to around 2000 BC. Although the story differs in specifics to that told in Genesis, the similarities in the general tone has convinced archaeologists that the Genesis account had been fundamentally derived from the Babylonian one.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Thios site has some good stuff about similarites and differences in human and ape chromosomes, one thing i found interesting is that some people believe that humans likley evolved from a colony of primates that became isolated from others for a period of time. This would explain why humans have fewer chromosomes than apes as the reduction is only possible through inbreeding. Which kind of relates it to the adam and eve story, which is about two people completley alone in this garden of paradise, and their grandkids would have had to be VERY inbred, which always seemed like the biggest flaw in the story to me.

Are there churches in other parts of the world that cling to creationism as much, the vatican dosent and neither does the anglican church.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]They also just passed health textbooks that say homosexuality is an aboration

Homosexuality is an "aberration", at least when you think in terms of Darwin's Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection. Think about it: The primary goal of an organism is to reproduce itself. Therefore, if a subset of a species has no interest in reproduction, then that subset is an aberration. It's certainly not a mutation (Or chemical imbalance, shrunken gland, whatever the theory is now) that is going to positively affect the subset's ability to propagate itself.

Quote[/b] ]Denoir i will start a topic on this later maybe here? If the mods ok it and then we can discuss this since this sint the right thread and i dont wanna get placebo angry

You may as well name the new thread "Revenge Of The Flamer: Hurlothrumbo Strikes Back" .

[EiZei 0]

Aberration as in psychiatric sense?