AE Public Forum
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 1 hour 13 min ago
Uncommonly Dense Thread 2
Post by Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 07 2008,22:12)The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes
comments off. these people are stupider than i ever imagined. i discover this daily. race to the bottom.
Do we know who writes the PharyngulaWatch entries? If not what's the money on DaveT or Dr Dr D?
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 07 2008,22:12)The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes
comments off. these people are stupider than i ever imagined. i discover this daily. race to the bottom.
Do we know who writes the PharyngulaWatch entries? If not what's the money on DaveT or Dr Dr D?
Categories: AE Public BB
Casey Luskin Thread
Post by intelekshual
And, delightfully, PZ Myers has linked to the story again, so plenty of people are reading it. I can't say how excited I am, and I'm quite enjoying the picture in my head of all the people at the Discovery Institute reading the little note I sent them... :)
And, delightfully, PZ Myers has linked to the story again, so plenty of people are reading it. I can't say how excited I am, and I'm quite enjoying the picture in my head of all the people at the Discovery Institute reading the little note I sent them... :)
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 2
Post by CeilingCat
Courtesy of The Straight Dope: The reDiscovery Institute: Quote The reDiscovery Institute is non-profit, public-policy think-tank located in Tacoma, Washington, with branches in Atlanta, Georgia and Fort Worth, Texas. ...
The reDiscovery Institute supports Fellows, who write letters to editors, testify at trials, post text on the web, and publish editorials in the Washington Times. ...
The reDiscovery Institute urges adherence to Phillip Johnson's Ice Pick Gambit: "Until we gain total control, keep the old testament part of our agenda quiet because it frightens normal people."
Under fellows: "Little Willie Dembski, Piltdown Fellow
Dr. Willie Dembski is Piltdown Fellow of the reDiscovery Institute. He is founder of the Web Blog "Sex, Lies and DNA", where he expounds on the study of biology. But he never does any biology himself, nor does he publish anything in peer-reviewed journals. He is a con artist of a mathematician, a fake-philosopher and biological charlatan. He is the Assistant Secretary of the Ann Coulter Fan Club. He works diligently at the task of CV puffery, referring to himself as a PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL. He is the author of Creative Creationism: Dissimulating for God, and the best seller in the home schooling market, The Old Testament: A Practical and Complete Study Guide for Calculus and Analytical Geometry. "
Good stuff.
Courtesy of The Straight Dope: The reDiscovery Institute: Quote The reDiscovery Institute is non-profit, public-policy think-tank located in Tacoma, Washington, with branches in Atlanta, Georgia and Fort Worth, Texas. ...
The reDiscovery Institute supports Fellows, who write letters to editors, testify at trials, post text on the web, and publish editorials in the Washington Times. ...
The reDiscovery Institute urges adherence to Phillip Johnson's Ice Pick Gambit: "Until we gain total control, keep the old testament part of our agenda quiet because it frightens normal people."
Under fellows: "Little Willie Dembski, Piltdown Fellow
Dr. Willie Dembski is Piltdown Fellow of the reDiscovery Institute. He is founder of the Web Blog "Sex, Lies and DNA", where he expounds on the study of biology. But he never does any biology himself, nor does he publish anything in peer-reviewed journals. He is a con artist of a mathematician, a fake-philosopher and biological charlatan. He is the Assistant Secretary of the Ann Coulter Fan Club. He works diligently at the task of CV puffery, referring to himself as a PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL. He is the author of Creative Creationism: Dissimulating for God, and the best seller in the home schooling market, The Old Testament: A Practical and Complete Study Guide for Calculus and Analytical Geometry. "
Good stuff.
Categories: AE Public BB
Happy Birfday Khan
Post by stevestory
Quote (khan @ Sep. 02 2008,20:08) Quote (lkeithlu @ Sep. 02 2008,19:53)Love your white squirrel! Hope it was a happy day!
Got drunk and did stupid things.
Woohoo!
Quote (khan @ Sep. 02 2008,20:08) Quote (lkeithlu @ Sep. 02 2008,19:53)Love your white squirrel! Hope it was a happy day!
Got drunk and did stupid things.
Woohoo!
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by stevestory
When Wes and I got a beer a few months ago, I'd cut it down to a 'stache, but here in Fla it's too hot, so I'm going baby-faced.
When Wes and I got a beer a few months ago, I'd cut it down to a 'stache, but here in Fla it's too hot, so I'm going baby-faced.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by stevestory
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 08 2008,00:25)
I would complain about you using that photo of me, but I shaved my beard off months ago.
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 08 2008,00:25)
I would complain about you using that photo of me, but I shaved my beard off months ago.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Arden Chatfield
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 07 2008,21:19) Quote Ignorant ranters get to use the Bathroom Wall.
and along came arden, right on cue!
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU:
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 07 2008,21:19) Quote Ignorant ranters get to use the Bathroom Wall.
and along came arden, right on cue!
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU:
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Erasmus, FCD
Quote Ignorant ranters get to use the Bathroom Wall.
and along came arden, right on cue!
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU
Quote Ignorant ranters get to use the Bathroom Wall.
and along came arden, right on cue!
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by Arden Chatfield
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 07 2008,11:16)I guess I'm not wanted here. My posts are automatically diverted to the bathroom wall. I came here to challenge and to be challenged, but I guess this is just a one-way street where no dissent is tolerated. Sad. I hope you all enjoy nice uncontested lives.
What's he bitching about? I checked back to August 26, and he had precisely ONE message bounced to the BW in all that time, not counting his "goodbye, I'm leaving" pout.
Oh well. Guess he needed *some* excuse to run away.
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 07 2008,11:16)I guess I'm not wanted here. My posts are automatically diverted to the bathroom wall. I came here to challenge and to be challenged, but I guess this is just a one-way street where no dissent is tolerated. Sad. I hope you all enjoy nice uncontested lives.
What's he bitching about? I checked back to August 26, and he had precisely ONE message bounced to the BW in all that time, not counting his "goodbye, I'm leaving" pout.
Oh well. Guess he needed *some* excuse to run away.
Categories: AE Public BB
Happy Birfday Khan
Post by Erasmus, FCD
where did your white skwirrell come from? not brevard, NC, huh?
where did your white skwirrell come from? not brevard, NC, huh?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 2
Post by stevestory
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2008,23:12)The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes
comments off. these people are stupider than i ever imagined. i discover this daily. race to the bottom.
Wow. That has to be seen to be believed. They're attributing McCain's post-convention bounce to PZ's cracker affair.
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2008,23:12)The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes
comments off. these people are stupider than i ever imagined. i discover this daily. race to the bottom.
Wow. That has to be seen to be believed. They're attributing McCain's post-convention bounce to PZ's cracker affair.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 2
Post by Erasmus, FCD
The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes
comments off. these people are stupider than i ever imagined. i discover this daily. race to the bottom.
The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes
comments off. these people are stupider than i ever imagined. i discover this daily. race to the bottom.
Categories: AE Public BB
Happy Birfday Khan
Post by jeffox
Another year older, another year smarter and better looking! I can tell, you know.
Quote In case anyone's interested: I'm 58, a little old lady, aging hippie, retired computer geek.
Meow, says da fox!
Many, many more to you, Khan! (sorry for the lateness)
Another year older, another year smarter and better looking! I can tell, you know.
Quote In case anyone's interested: I'm 58, a little old lady, aging hippie, retired computer geek.
Meow, says da fox!
Many, many more to you, Khan! (sorry for the lateness)
Categories: AE Public BB
Happy Birthday, R. Bill and Albie
Post by jeffox
For you guys who remember what Elvis looked like WHEN HE WAS ALIVE!
Happy day to you both!
(Sorry that this is so late, I've been busy this week - basically my summer ended.)
For you guys who remember what Elvis looked like WHEN HE WAS ALIVE!
Happy day to you both!
(Sorry that this is so late, I've been busy this week - basically my summer ended.)
Categories: AE Public BB
Presidential Politics & Antievolution
Post by carlsonjok
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,18:52) Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.
If the system permits that type of execution, you have to ask if its construction is still appropriate. It's undeniable that it was designed (where have I seen that phrase before?) for social and technological conditions very different from today's. Perhaps Americans consider the abuses and corruption within it an acceptable cost of the freedom the system permits. Or perhaps they reason that the problems can be fixed without change to the constitution. But if I was an American, I'd take quite a bit of convincing.
I think there are two faulty premises in what you are saying here. First, I would suggest that you are engaging in a reverse Exceptionalism inasmuch as you seem to the think that abuses and corruption are particularly egregious in the American system. Second, you are seem to be assuming that there is no means of addressing such problems except by changed constitutional construction. I think both premises are wrong.
I think the first premise is prima facie false and requires little comment except to say that corruption and abuses of power are present in any system and I don't think the American system is any worse, and probably much better*, than most other systems. That said, I do understand power is a force multiplier and a minor abuse of power here may have a more significant impact that a major abuse elsewhere. But I don't see that as a fault in construction, but as a problem in execution.
The second premise is false in that there are means of dealing with abuses of power and corruption. The American Constitution provides means for dealing with violations of a constitutional nature. Indeed, I would note that several times, when suits related to the constitutionality of the "enemy combatant" and military tribunal policy have rose above the district court level, the Bush administration has backed down in what I would describe as a strategic retreat to avoid constitutional reviews that are unlikely to break there way (I am thinking particularly of the Hamdan and Padilla cases). The unitary executive concept and the signing statements, along with the warrantless wiretapping, are still concerns and it should be interesting to see how that plays out.
The second premise is also flawed in that I question that is necessary that a constitution deal with anything more than defining the role and structure of government and the nature of it's relationship to the governed. Abuses and corruption that falls outside the (current) US constitution are not unaddressable. Rather, they are addressed through existing, and voluminous, criminal and civil codes.
Quote
I agree, constitutions shouldn't be tinkered with on a whim. My point however is that many Americans seem to subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, that their Constitution is the definitive and unimpeachable wellspring of democracy. But remember that Eisenhower's first draft of his farewell speech referred to the concentration of power in "a military-industrial-congressional complex". Allegedly for fear of instigating a political crisis, he removed the reference to Congress, and toned down his remarks to the 'potential' for such a concentration, not to its actuality. But that it exists is a fact.That it does so within your constitutional system suggests that the ability to concentrate that much power in that way is a defect in the system that those who drafted the constitution did not and could not have forseen.
Spare me. In this regard, America is completely unexceptional. Business and governmental interests are inexorably intertwined in all systems everywhere. I will try not to engage in armchair psychology, but I would ask you to consider whether your unease with the American military-industrial complex** is less due to our constitutional construction and more that our (currently) pre-eminent position militarily in the world tends to exaggerate the impact of abuses that would be merely annoying elsewhere.
Quote But any political commentator, let alone politician, who dared to say so would at best be written off as a flake, or be denounced for treason for daring to suggest that the Founding Fathers (Forgive me, I have to laugh whenever I see that term) might have got even part of it wrong.
I make no bones about it, I think the American Constitution is an exceptional document, witnessed by the fact that other nations have modeled their constitution after ours, sometimes even lifting language wholesale. I think you are put-off by the extent of American power (a point I will not begrudge you) and are confusing the execution of a fundamentally flawed system with the execution of a fundamentally good system by flawed actors. But rather than dealing with this in the abstract, I think it would be easier (for me, at least) if you would elucidate what you would change about the American Constitution.
* I come to this perspective as a businessman, employed by a European company, who deals frequently with associates all across the world, and passing familiarity with anti-corruption laws. Business laws and practices around the world (including Europe) are far more laissez faire than those here in the States.
** Strangely enough, the last 8 years, and the verdict from the Hamdan tribunal last month, have lead me to the conclusion that we have far less to fear from our military than the civilians elected and appointed to direct them.
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,18:52) Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.
If the system permits that type of execution, you have to ask if its construction is still appropriate. It's undeniable that it was designed (where have I seen that phrase before?) for social and technological conditions very different from today's. Perhaps Americans consider the abuses and corruption within it an acceptable cost of the freedom the system permits. Or perhaps they reason that the problems can be fixed without change to the constitution. But if I was an American, I'd take quite a bit of convincing.
I think there are two faulty premises in what you are saying here. First, I would suggest that you are engaging in a reverse Exceptionalism inasmuch as you seem to the think that abuses and corruption are particularly egregious in the American system. Second, you are seem to be assuming that there is no means of addressing such problems except by changed constitutional construction. I think both premises are wrong.
I think the first premise is prima facie false and requires little comment except to say that corruption and abuses of power are present in any system and I don't think the American system is any worse, and probably much better*, than most other systems. That said, I do understand power is a force multiplier and a minor abuse of power here may have a more significant impact that a major abuse elsewhere. But I don't see that as a fault in construction, but as a problem in execution.
The second premise is false in that there are means of dealing with abuses of power and corruption. The American Constitution provides means for dealing with violations of a constitutional nature. Indeed, I would note that several times, when suits related to the constitutionality of the "enemy combatant" and military tribunal policy have rose above the district court level, the Bush administration has backed down in what I would describe as a strategic retreat to avoid constitutional reviews that are unlikely to break there way (I am thinking particularly of the Hamdan and Padilla cases). The unitary executive concept and the signing statements, along with the warrantless wiretapping, are still concerns and it should be interesting to see how that plays out.
The second premise is also flawed in that I question that is necessary that a constitution deal with anything more than defining the role and structure of government and the nature of it's relationship to the governed. Abuses and corruption that falls outside the (current) US constitution are not unaddressable. Rather, they are addressed through existing, and voluminous, criminal and civil codes.
Quote
I agree, constitutions shouldn't be tinkered with on a whim. My point however is that many Americans seem to subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, that their Constitution is the definitive and unimpeachable wellspring of democracy. But remember that Eisenhower's first draft of his farewell speech referred to the concentration of power in "a military-industrial-congressional complex". Allegedly for fear of instigating a political crisis, he removed the reference to Congress, and toned down his remarks to the 'potential' for such a concentration, not to its actuality. But that it exists is a fact.That it does so within your constitutional system suggests that the ability to concentrate that much power in that way is a defect in the system that those who drafted the constitution did not and could not have forseen.
Spare me. In this regard, America is completely unexceptional. Business and governmental interests are inexorably intertwined in all systems everywhere. I will try not to engage in armchair psychology, but I would ask you to consider whether your unease with the American military-industrial complex** is less due to our constitutional construction and more that our (currently) pre-eminent position militarily in the world tends to exaggerate the impact of abuses that would be merely annoying elsewhere.
Quote But any political commentator, let alone politician, who dared to say so would at best be written off as a flake, or be denounced for treason for daring to suggest that the Founding Fathers (Forgive me, I have to laugh whenever I see that term) might have got even part of it wrong.
I make no bones about it, I think the American Constitution is an exceptional document, witnessed by the fact that other nations have modeled their constitution after ours, sometimes even lifting language wholesale. I think you are put-off by the extent of American power (a point I will not begrudge you) and are confusing the execution of a fundamentally flawed system with the execution of a fundamentally good system by flawed actors. But rather than dealing with this in the abstract, I think it would be easier (for me, at least) if you would elucidate what you would change about the American Constitution.
* I come to this perspective as a businessman, employed by a European company, who deals frequently with associates all across the world, and passing familiarity with anti-corruption laws. Business laws and practices around the world (including Europe) are far more laissez faire than those here in the States.
** Strangely enough, the last 8 years, and the verdict from the Hamdan tribunal last month, have lead me to the conclusion that we have far less to fear from our military than the civilians elected and appointed to direct them.
Categories: AE Public BB
Presidential Politics & Antievolution
Post by Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,17:53) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,14:43) Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.
I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.
Oops.
Scorn withdrorn.
Sorry Amadan I was poking Lou's "knee jerk love it or leave it syndrome" there at your expense. I thought after 9-11 the whole world knew about "you don't love freedom" sorta stuff and you would get it.
and he has absolutely failed to understand my point. sigh.
anyway there is much good stuff in the rest of what amadan says.
Quote If you take the view that voting just encourages the bastards, you are stuck with the problem of how you are going to assure yourself the freedom that you clearly value. Opting out is fine until you run up against the system. When that happens - say, if a cop doesn't like the colour of your skin or the town council votes to remove the Koran from the library - what are you going to do?
This is true. How does on assure oneself of freedom when voting clearly encourages the bastards? If we question those assumptions you are saying are worth questioning, then perhaps we may understand the timeless truth held by most religious-philosophical systems: freedom is a mental condition, a state of mind.
Easy answer, right? Yet it is true in many respects. The central issue becomes the definition of "freedom".
Quote Perhaps your point is that there is nothing that you can do, and that the system will inevitably crush individual freedom. Personally, I don't take that view. If the system of government itself is a subject of debate and potential change, the individual has a far stronger chance of fighting back.
Of course this is true. Any governmental system gleans its power from the freedom of individuals. Individuals have varying amounts of resources available to them, which results in varying treatment of those same individuals by any system. I suggest, as assassinator has suggested, that the fundamental issue of interest is "What scale of government best maximizes the freedom of individuals?" The answer to this question has complex interactions with the relations of those individuals to the ecology of their means of sustenance. The form of government taken by both yurrpeens and amurrikkkans, indeed all of the 'civilized' world, is one that must grow or die, just like a cancer.
A vote for anyone in a US election is a vote for continuing the system of natural resource exploitation that has dammed nearly every mile of the tennessee river, resulted in the obliteration over 700 miles of streams in Appalachia by mountaintop removal, extinction of north american indigenous cultures, etc etc etc etc. A vote for anyone gives your sanction to this history, your consent. The blood is on your hands.
Assassinator says
Quote But I wonder what you would want then? What would work for a society of USA-ish size. Or do you think we shouldn't live in USA sized groups anymore?
We should not. I believe this to be an empirical truth, even given the ethical claim embedded in the proposition. To unpack a bit, if we value connection with our landscape, if we value growing or procuring our own food, if we value sustainable human communities, then this claim is true. I suggest that most folks hold these values, but for other reasons they are led to compromise them in the hopes (as Lou has suggested above) that participation may allay the inevitable demise of the system for just a little bit longer.
anarchy? not what i am advocating. however i don't think this ship can run forever, and in the meantime it's important to remember the Old Ways. the division of labor and mechanization of daily human tasks have caused a Great Forgetting, politics now is a dance of amnesiacs who are merely chanting magic words they do not understand in hopes of stirring primeval passions that are beyond the grasp of reason.
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,17:53) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,14:43) Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.
I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.
Oops.
Scorn withdrorn.
Sorry Amadan I was poking Lou's "knee jerk love it or leave it syndrome" there at your expense. I thought after 9-11 the whole world knew about "you don't love freedom" sorta stuff and you would get it.
and he has absolutely failed to understand my point. sigh.
anyway there is much good stuff in the rest of what amadan says.
Quote If you take the view that voting just encourages the bastards, you are stuck with the problem of how you are going to assure yourself the freedom that you clearly value. Opting out is fine until you run up against the system. When that happens - say, if a cop doesn't like the colour of your skin or the town council votes to remove the Koran from the library - what are you going to do?
This is true. How does on assure oneself of freedom when voting clearly encourages the bastards? If we question those assumptions you are saying are worth questioning, then perhaps we may understand the timeless truth held by most religious-philosophical systems: freedom is a mental condition, a state of mind.
Easy answer, right? Yet it is true in many respects. The central issue becomes the definition of "freedom".
Quote Perhaps your point is that there is nothing that you can do, and that the system will inevitably crush individual freedom. Personally, I don't take that view. If the system of government itself is a subject of debate and potential change, the individual has a far stronger chance of fighting back.
Of course this is true. Any governmental system gleans its power from the freedom of individuals. Individuals have varying amounts of resources available to them, which results in varying treatment of those same individuals by any system. I suggest, as assassinator has suggested, that the fundamental issue of interest is "What scale of government best maximizes the freedom of individuals?" The answer to this question has complex interactions with the relations of those individuals to the ecology of their means of sustenance. The form of government taken by both yurrpeens and amurrikkkans, indeed all of the 'civilized' world, is one that must grow or die, just like a cancer.
A vote for anyone in a US election is a vote for continuing the system of natural resource exploitation that has dammed nearly every mile of the tennessee river, resulted in the obliteration over 700 miles of streams in Appalachia by mountaintop removal, extinction of north american indigenous cultures, etc etc etc etc. A vote for anyone gives your sanction to this history, your consent. The blood is on your hands.
Assassinator says
Quote But I wonder what you would want then? What would work for a society of USA-ish size. Or do you think we shouldn't live in USA sized groups anymore?
We should not. I believe this to be an empirical truth, even given the ethical claim embedded in the proposition. To unpack a bit, if we value connection with our landscape, if we value growing or procuring our own food, if we value sustainable human communities, then this claim is true. I suggest that most folks hold these values, but for other reasons they are led to compromise them in the hopes (as Lou has suggested above) that participation may allay the inevitable demise of the system for just a little bit longer.
anarchy? not what i am advocating. however i don't think this ship can run forever, and in the meantime it's important to remember the Old Ways. the division of labor and mechanization of daily human tasks have caused a Great Forgetting, politics now is a dance of amnesiacs who are merely chanting magic words they do not understand in hopes of stirring primeval passions that are beyond the grasp of reason.
Categories: AE Public BB
Biology 111 @ Coastal Carolina
Post by jeffox
Hiya Lou!
I just got done with my first week back at school. As a geology major, my main course is Minerology/Petrology; but I'm also taking Pre-Calc and an intro to Archeology class.
You wrote above:
Quote I got my precalc quiz and my labs back Wednesday night, and maxed them all out at 100s too.
I took my first quiz on Thurs. and think that I did well - but I haven't seen the result yet. We're currently on line equations and quadratic formula derivation. Neh. . . :)
My Archeology instructor is very animated, likes to quote James Brown, and is a joke-a-minute kind of guy. I don't anticipate any problems there.
Min-Pet is going to be a lot of work, but should be rewarding as a major "core" course for me. Plus we have all kinds of field trips (two weekenders, one going as far as the Black Hills in SD) and I get a really cool hammer!!
I had Chem last semester, and (maybe) in the above, the bond is actually a C-C bond, with the H bonding to one or the other? Anyway, I got a B+ in that course, but did a lot of work and kinda forgot a lot already. :P
Best of luck to all of the school returnees! Have fun and learn lots.
Hiya Lou!
I just got done with my first week back at school. As a geology major, my main course is Minerology/Petrology; but I'm also taking Pre-Calc and an intro to Archeology class.
You wrote above:
Quote I got my precalc quiz and my labs back Wednesday night, and maxed them all out at 100s too.
I took my first quiz on Thurs. and think that I did well - but I haven't seen the result yet. We're currently on line equations and quadratic formula derivation. Neh. . . :)
My Archeology instructor is very animated, likes to quote James Brown, and is a joke-a-minute kind of guy. I don't anticipate any problems there.
Min-Pet is going to be a lot of work, but should be rewarding as a major "core" course for me. Plus we have all kinds of field trips (two weekenders, one going as far as the Black Hills in SD) and I get a really cool hammer!!
I had Chem last semester, and (maybe) in the above, the bond is actually a C-C bond, with the H bonding to one or the other? Anyway, I got a B+ in that course, but did a lot of work and kinda forgot a lot already. :P
Best of luck to all of the school returnees! Have fun and learn lots.
Categories: AE Public BB
Casey Luskin Thread
Post by Texas Teach
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 07 2008,20:47)So if someone wants to talk IDC and legal issues, they can talk to Casey and they can talk to me. I'm one up on Casey about what happens in reality. when IDC meets jurisprudence, though.
Fixed that for you. And I think we all know it's a lot more than one.
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 07 2008,20:47)So if someone wants to talk IDC and legal issues, they can talk to Casey and they can talk to me. I'm one up on Casey about what happens in reality. when IDC meets jurisprudence, though.
Fixed that for you. And I think we all know it's a lot more than one.
Categories: AE Public BB
Casey Luskin Thread
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
I remember a lunch with Casey in 2004 where we talked about IDC's legal prospects. The Darby, Montana incident was over, but Darby demonstrated that IDC could be at the center of a legal challenge. Casey thought that since IDC didn't talk about religion explicitly, it would pass all legal scrutiny. I took the line that IDC's history of reliance on previous antievolution arguments plus the history of IDC advocates telling religious audiences that it really was about religion would do for it.
The continuous record of religious antievolution argumentation documented in the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" -- and the manuscript of its successor -- was icing on the cake. A real Christian really, really dislikes liars. This is a lesson Casey has not yet learned.
So if someone wants to talk IDC and legal issues, they can talk to Casey and they can talk to me. I'm one up on Casey about what happens in reality when IDC meets jurisprudence, though.
I remember a lunch with Casey in 2004 where we talked about IDC's legal prospects. The Darby, Montana incident was over, but Darby demonstrated that IDC could be at the center of a legal challenge. Casey thought that since IDC didn't talk about religion explicitly, it would pass all legal scrutiny. I took the line that IDC's history of reliance on previous antievolution arguments plus the history of IDC advocates telling religious audiences that it really was about religion would do for it.
The continuous record of religious antievolution argumentation documented in the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" -- and the manuscript of its successor -- was icing on the cake. A real Christian really, really dislikes liars. This is a lesson Casey has not yet learned.
So if someone wants to talk IDC and legal issues, they can talk to Casey and they can talk to me. I'm one up on Casey about what happens in reality when IDC meets jurisprudence, though.
Categories: AE Public BB
