Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For me, Palin, without a doubt. There's been so much talk of experience. True, Palin has not been in the senate, like Biden. But, hasn't he been there as long as Palin's been alive (maybe I heard that incorrectly somewhere)? To me, that goes beyond "experience" to being the same old thing that Democrats have been rallying against during this election. I see Biden as being much more of a politician who will say anything based on the poll of the day and what he wants at that moment. I see Palin as much more honest and what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
To me, party trumps person. If Palin is elected, we get the Republican coalition behind her. For Biden, the Democrat coalition and ideas. I can't understand why a Republican would vote for Biden, and vice versa, unless you're on the fence about which party's ideas you agree with.
She acknowledged that evolution is a plausible theory in one of her speeches. It was on CNN and FOX
Clearly many people, including Sarah Palin, misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason they often draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific term means. Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory." Each term has a different definition.
I have included two definitions for the word theory .
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
According to your post above she is taking it to have the meaning of definition #2. WRONG, when it comes to referring to a scientific principle. Does she think the theory of relativity is plausible?
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
No Sarah, it is not plausible, it is defensible, and proven. I would hope that if she is to continue to try to talk intelligently on the subject that she would read the "Origin of Species", as I would suggest for anyone that has doubts about the Theory of Evolution.
I agree with some of the other members. There is NO WAY I would want a right wing fundamentalist Christian (nor any other religious fundamentalist) to be president. I don't want to live in a theocracy and that is path we would be heading down.
As a woman I want reproductive choice to be protected. I want sex ed in schools, so unwanted pregnancies will be prevented! I want long term solutions regarding the looming energy crisis, not short term band-aids. ETC. ETC. There is not one reason why I would vote for her.
Like you, katzenfreund, I don't want any kind of religious fundamentalist in any position of power. I'm a Christian, but not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists in any arena are dangerous.
We disagree, however, on the "choice" issue. A woman has already made her choice when she elected to mess around, risking pregnancy. By the time conception occurs, giving life to a true human being, that's too late to make a "choice." Abortion is murder, period.
Sex education in schools? That's the parents' job -- when the subject comes up with their kids. Sex education does not prevent unwanted pregnancies. All these kids today know about sex, yet they still get pregnant. Sex is for married people. If you disagree with that, then we will find no common ground on that subject. Morals: you either accept them or you don't.
My morals are not your morals, that is the issue. I am a strict vegetarian. I think it is unethical the way we raise and slaughter animals. I do not push my ethical values on anyone else. I am not trying to take away anyone's right to eat meat.
No one wants to have an abortion, but I wouldn't dream of forcing a woman to have a fetus she does not want. Ever. But that is a whole different can of worms... and as long as the abortion is done within the first trimester, I don't have a problem with it.
Everyone has their own set of values. We don't have to share them. We never will. I can live with that.
That is just human nature.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
Clearly many people, including Sarah Palin, misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason they often draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific term means. Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory." Each term has a different definition.
I have included two definitions for the word theory .
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
According to your post above she is taking it to have the meaning of definition #2. WRONG, when it comes to referring to a scientific principle. Does she think the theory of relativity is plausible?
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
No Sarah, it is not plausible, it is defensible, and proven. I would hope that if she is to continue to try to talk intelligently on the subject that she would read the "Origin of Species", as I would suggest for anyone that has doubts about the Theory of Evolution.
"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of naturalphenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity."
The LHC or large hadron collider is set to change and answer the theories of gravity and possibly mass. Including possibly answering question about the big bang theory. Not to be mistaken by theorem...which in short is a theory based on a law. Also don't mistake what testable means.
If it was proven it would be moved from theory to law.....like the laws of thermodynamics.
The LHC or large hadron collider is set to change and answer the theories of gravity and possibly mass. Including possibly answering question about the big bang theory. Not to be mistaken by theorem...which in short is a theory based on a law. Also don't mistake what testable means.
But it is proven, it is far more complex than a law.
Do you not agree with the Theory of Evolution, or is it the Theory of Relativity that you have a problem with?
Let me try to better explain it in layman's terms since Wikipedia can sometimes be confusing
A scientific law is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise language, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Such as the law of gravity g = 9.8 m/s2 -- one equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
The Theory of Evolution, relies on Scientific Laws, such as the Law of Original Horizontality, and the Laws of Superposition.
Hope this helps you to understand the differences. I have left out the definition of hypothesis, but that can be for another day... Along with Paleontology and the History of Life on Earth!
I went to a Catholic High School and we had sex education. It consisted of telling us all the risks of disease as well as pregnancy. They did discuss birth control but emphasized the ineffectiveness of each. I'll tell you this, seeing photos of gonorrhea, herpes sores, and secondary syphillis was more than enough to make me put off having sex for a while so I'm not sure why anyone would think that sex education can ONLY encourage kids to have sex.
I believe that teaching students about all of the risks and consequences of sex is a basic part of any health education class.
In terms of economics, historically it has been shown that all but the top 1% do better economically under a democratic president rather than republican - and the top 1% do well just not as well. Under republican presidencies, only the top 1% have done better.
The ABC interview with Charlie Gibson showed me that Palin does not know enough about foreign policy to step into the presidency if necessary. I think she is bright and personable but that isn't enough to lead a country.
I'm not necessarily thrilled by Joe Biden but I'm more comfortable with his qualifications. I believe that if Obama had chosen Clinton, then McCain would have never chosen Palin. I think she was picked mainly because she is a woman and not because of her particular qualifications.
I went to a Catholic High School and we had sex education. It consisted of telling us all the risks of disease as well as pregnancy. They did discuss birth control but emphasized the ineffectiveness of each. I'll tell you this, seeing photos of gonorrhea, herpes sores, and secondary syphillis was more than enough to make me put off having sex for a while so I'm not sure why anyone would think that sex education can ONLY encourage kids to have sex.
I believe that teaching students about all of the risks and consequences of sex is a basic part of any health education class.
In terms of economics, historically it has been shown that all but the top 1% do better economically under a democratic president rather than republican - and the top 1% do well just not as well. Under republican presidencies, only the top 1% have done better.
The ABC interview with Charlie Gibson showed me that Palin does not know enough about foreign policy to step into the presidency if necessary. I think she is bright and personable but that isn't enough to lead a country.
I'm not necessarily thrilled by Joe Biden but I'm more comfortable with his qualifications. I believe that if Obama had chosen Clinton, then McCain would have never chosen Palin. I think she was picked mainly because she is a woman and not because of her particular qualifications.
You just described abstinence teaching.
You teach the weakness of other methods while focusing in on the fact they aren't 100%. Only 1 thing is 100%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fundamentalism and "Choice"
