US Politics

I read an article in TIME magazine saying that neither of the presidental canidates can really solve the US debt issue. They both pretty much have similar ideas on what they would do, but neither could really solve it, basically saying US is screwed. Greed has screwed us so much, thank you greedy banks. So, I would say don't vote based on who you think can fix all the problems...focus on the positives, because chances are all our problems won't be fixed, maybe some of them, but not all of them.

It seems as if some Americans don't want to vote for Obama because he's black, and his name sounds muslim, they think he is muslim or arab and that he is 'friends with terroists'. No one can solve all our problems, sorting out the US financial crisis helps the rest of us.

I think evolution should be thought. But whether it's random chance or derived from intelligence should be a foot note. That it happens is obvious. Why it started is a little bit more up for debate.

And I just can't imagine not mentioning that there /is/ a debate. Or that we are unsure or unable to know certain things.

If I had ever thought what I learned was infallible, I wouldn't have studied as much as I did. I mean, what if we still thought Newton was it? All those poor kids taught that as inexorable truth...

*Thinks* Not exactly the same but I've gone out on a tangent. Sorry. Lemme think of a better example. Mass of a proton is 1,6726 x 10^(-27) kg while the mass of neutron is 1,6749 x 10^(-27) kg. That's pretty much fact. Now, saying "If this weren't the case, nothing could exist as we know it" is true because you can back that up in really long papers based on how quarks interact. But you can't add "This happened randomly" or "God did this" without speculating. We don't know if EITHER of those statements are true. So I think it's important to say "we don't know if this was random or designed." I hope I got my point across better there. *reads it again* Eh...

Back on politics though: I kinda hate living in the South around election time. Even more so now that Obama's running. I mean, if you aren't going to vote for him, at least have a reason besides "He's black" and if you are, I'd hope it's a better reason that "He's black." Same thing with Palin, but with gender. I'd like to know who's gonna be around 'em and appointed to different positions though. Seems like an important detail to leave out with so much at stake.

I have no idea what either of those statements mean. I don't like when people say 'NEWTON DISCOVERED GRAVITY!' he did not! it was already there he just gave it a name haha

R.E was hardly ever about religion, I remember learning about the 5 pillars of Islam and the rest of the time it was all humanity type based, I got out of having to go to R.E at one point though, I can't remember why. It's a bit different in Britain though, I've never really come across anyone who seems as extreme as in America, apart from bishops on tv. Once an American was on my bus home asking me about my beliefs and I said I lost my faith because of ikky people and he said 'Ain't no greater victim then Jeeesaaas!' I was not impressed.

Rasism makes me feel ill. We keep being showing this woman telling McCain that Obama is an Arab...I believe he is a United States citizen, otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to go up for president. It puzzles me that racism still happens in America. Our ancestors are the reason people from different ethnic backgrounds are here, and also everyone has the right to live where they bloody well want to. /rant

I agree with zootm and could not have said it any better


Zootm, you should go check out yahoo answers , religion and spirituality. Its fun

"It seems as if some Americans don't want to vote for Obama because he's black, and his name sounds muslim, they think he is muslim or arab and that he is 'friends with terroists'. No one can solve all our problems, sorting out the US financial crisis helps the rest of us."

the whole Arab thing because of his name is crazy talk. Its like pleassssssse people, don't be that dum.

Canada just had our Election. lets see who will be our new prime minister

I think that whole "hussain" being his middle name thing is kind of old now. Most people don't care anymoer actually. And the black thing... well I'm just lucky enough not to live in an area where color is that big of an issue, so no one really around here cares.

With the whole william Ayers thing... I don't understand why THATS a big deal. I'm sure that I am acquaintances with someone who will at some point in their life will be a horrible person. Its not my fault that they sit next to me in class or anything. Its not obama's fault that Ayers turned out to be a terrorist. Its so stupid.... I don't get people.

I would like to comment on the whole issue of evolution and spirituality.

First of all, I'm a Christian! I am also someone who is very open to different views, within and out of Christianity.

As far as the whole issue of a theory being fact:

>"In the context of science, though, a "theory" is basically something that is proven beyond too much reasonable doubt." -zootm

Here's dictionary.com's version: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

To start, the "Big Bang" is a scientific theory. It basically says, everything was created from nothing. Which I did learn in my science class that that is impossible, scientifically. First of all, there is a scientific law, the first law of thermo-dynamics says that "Matter can't be created nor destroyed." Also the "theory" of the "Big Bang" says that all the dirt and other stuff in the universe was all compacted together into something smaller than a pin-point, and was spinning unbelievably fast, that speed made it heat up and explode. This means that "The Conservation of angular momentum" would come into play. This states: when something is spinning in a frictionless area (which the big bang would be) that when it breaks apart (or in this case explode), everything that leaves it would be spinning the same direction. In other words, if the "big bang" was spinning clock-wise, then everything should be spinning clock-wise... there are planets in our universe that argue that. Two planets in our solar system are spinning backwards and many moons are as well.

Then as far as evolution specifically, it was mentioned that evolution can be seen today. What you need to look at is, what is evolution? There are some different types of evolution. Macro-evolution, and Micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is a view on animals turning into other animals. A rock evolving into a human! Or a dog producing a non-dog! Micro-evolution is evolution within a species. A Labrador mating with a German Sheppard. It will equal something in between. That is considered evolution. (Micro-evolution). In my opinion, micro-evolution and macro evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other, they are just called something similar.

As much as I would not mind going on, i will Finnish it by going back to a previous argument, and that is that I do believe that the "Theory of evolution" should be taught in science class. But I also believe that the "Theory of Intelligent Design" should be taught as well.

Note: I do not mean this to come off harsh or aggressive to anyone!

I completely understand your beliefs Cameron as far as being Christian and what your faith tells you what happened.

But the theory of intelligent design is completely based on faith. There is no proof that god exsists or heaven or hell or anything of the such exsists. I'm not saying its not true, in fact, no intelligent scientist, including Charles Darwin, or Richards Dawkins would say without a doubt that God does not exsist, but Science class is based on observation and what we have prooven so far. Science has not proven the theory of Intelligent design, or even been close to prooving it.

I think Science class should restrict their teaching to what we KNOW and what all our findings are pointing us to, which is Evolution.

Thats why you have church, its THEIR job to teach you the Theory of Intelligent design and what the bible says happened. Thats where you learn Religious thought.


Schools are funded federally, and there is a seperation of church and state. We cannot teach religious beliefs in science class, or we'd have to teach ALL religious beliefs. We need to teach science in science classes, and thats all. Thats why its a science class.

I'm not trying to be mean, at all, and I understand why people's faith are important to them, but we need restrictions on what we teach where.

I agree with Dis.ar.ray, My provience of Newfoundland(Canada) seperated the Church from the schools in the late 90's. I think theories like intelligent design should be taught, but as a theory. Eveolution is based on scientific reasearch. I am Native, and the Micqmac have their own stories on how we humans came about, every culture, religion has a creation myth. They should be studied,so that these stories will not be forgotten.

but Like D said, Religion is a course of theories, Science classes should be left to research

Cameron S.> Here's dictionary.com's version: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

That's not the scientific definition, this is (from Wiktionary):

> A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
or
> A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

Our understanding of gravity, for example, is a theory. Evolution is also a fact. There is as much evidence to prove evolution as fact as there is to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, and that the Moon orbits the Earth.

The Big Bang has precisely nothing to do with the teaching of Evolution but:

Cameron S.> In other words, if the "big bang" was spinning clock-wise, then everything should be spinning clock-wise... there are planets in our universe that argue that. Two planets in our solar system are spinning backwards and many moons are as well.

I'm pretty sure that's a ridiculous assertion. There's scientific arguments about our current Big Bang conjectures but that's not one.

Cameron S.> Then as far as evolution specifically, it was mentioned that evolution can be seen today. What you need to look at is, what is evolution? There are some different types of evolution. Macro-evolution, and Micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is a view on animals turning into other animals. A rock evolving into a human! Or a dog producing a non-dog! Micro-evolution is evolution within a species. A Labrador mating with a German Sheppard. It will equal something in between. That is considered evolution. (Micro-evolution). In my opinion, micro-evolution and macro evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other, they are just called something similar.

Most people who have any understanding of biology disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion. The distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, taken to mean what you mean there, is only ever talked about by disingenuous creationists. It is not a scientific distinction; the scientific definition of macroevolution has been observed in the past.

Cameron S.> As much as I would not mind going on, i will Finnish it by going back to a previous argument, and that is that I do believe that the "Theory of evolution" should be taught in science class. But I also believe that the "Theory of Intelligent Design" should be taught as well.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it's an atrocious pseudoscientific grab-bag. It has barely any consistent formulation (the assertion that "Intelligent Design" is just one movement or just one theory is horribly flawed - it covers a wide array of assertions which share barely any attributes), and is at it's core the Teleological argument rephrased as an argument against evolution.

Cameron S.> Note: I do not mean this to come off harsh or aggressive to anyone!

Me neither, although I realise I almost definitely am! I get kinda fed up with these arguments - they may be theologically interesting, but they're not science.

Jeez this is starting to sound like the R&S section of Y!A [and I'm begining to sound like I spend every waking moment on this contraption, but yea... I'm not that big of a loser. I'm just stuck with "bedrest [couchrest] for two weeks, so its a background thing I do while I'm crafting]

Just wandering... I have been reading this board and i have a question. Zootm you said

>...evolution is a scientific theory. (Oct 12, 2008 8:00pm)

and then just now

>Evolution is also a fact.

So which is it, a fact or theory? Or do you mean both? (if so how can it be?) And if it is just a fact then how is it a fact? I thought facts had to be demonstrable....

I'm answering this because I'm pretty sure I know what he means, since everyone say it.

Scientists call it a theory because technically, it is a theory, but scientists are pretty much SO SURE OF IT that they consider it a fact.

Honstly, its a fact that I'm sitting on the couch, its proovable. But nothing is proovable beyond a doubt, because I could be insane in a mental ward and I just THINK I'm sitting on a couch.

Just, as much as it can be proven, it has been. The only reaon people disagree with the theory of evolutino is because they do not fully understand it and/or it doesn't fit with their faith.

Lizzy Loo> So which is it, a fact or theory? Or do you mean both? (if so how can it be?) And if it is just a fact then how is it a fact? I thought facts had to be demonstrable....

Things can be both, but "fact" is usually a stronger claim. Really the point is that in the field of biology evolution is considered fact now, and many biologists have started using that term rather than "theory" since people who are not scientists clearly do not understand the connotations.

There's actually a pretty good Wikipedia page on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Obviously nothing is completely provable (the existence of the universe before the instant which you're currently experiencing, for example, may just be an advanced construction appearing to have a past), but these pedantic arguments are why science draws these distinctions to distance itself from philosophy and religion.

There's a good quote on the Wikipedia page:
> Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.
-- U.S. National Academy of Science