Jump to content

Embarrassed to be a Texan


Fringe

Recommended Posts

On the idea of evolution being a gradual process - it is and it isn't. It can occur gradually in some instances, and it can occur abruptly. Most researchers in evolution believe that it is a mixture of gradual and abrupt changes over time. Look up "punctuated equillibrium" and "quantum evolution" to get an idea for just a few of the models for evolution. Classic Darwinian gradualism has been left behind long ago.

On the idea of some evolutionary tracks being vertical in nature, as McLeroy claims, "evolutionary track" is an astronomical term, not a biological term, so that should clue you into McLeroy's level of understanding. Secondly, assuming that when McLeroy is talking about speciation when he talks about "vertical evolution"; the various mechanisms of speciation are well-understood: eg: allopatric, parapatric, peripatric (which have all been observed), sympatric.

No, we did not evolve from monkeys. We and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. However, it is possible for one species to evolve from another species and both species to remain extant. If McLeroy is asserting that this can't happen, then this exposes his ignorance at a basic level of the body of evolutionary theory he is attacking. A particular population of a species can remain genetically stable if its environment remains genetically stable. Genetic changes which differ from the traits that have already adapted it to that environment provide no advantage, even provide a disadvantage, so are not passed on, and that population of that species remains the same. Now if a group migrates from that population, it may find itself in a different environment that favors different traits, and disfavors original traits. This could cause that migrated population to change so much it becomes a new species.

Science has a far better understanding of the mechanisms of evolution than it does the mechanisms of gravity, yet we don't teach high school physics students the "alternative theory" that the Hand of God pushes us down and keeps us from flying off the earth.

There is a story of Gallileo being called before the Inquisition, who demanded he recant his theory that the earth revolves around the sun - or else. Gallileo did recant his theory, but then supposedly looked down at the earth and muttered "yet it moves." No amount of denial by backward people like McLeroy is going to change the FACT that evolution is real, has been observed, and is quite well understood compared to other natural phenomena. It's just sad that in a state that already has one of the worst educational performance records in the country, the chairman of our board of education is actively trying to further weaken the quality of the education our students get.

Very well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not embarrassed to be a Texan although I am occasionally embarrased by other Texans. I am not embarrassed to be a Christian, although my favorite saying is, "Jesus, save us from your followers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a relief.

Now we have to tell our so-called "representatives" to not vote for what's-her-name who is WORSE than McLeroy. UGH. She might be put up as a candidate for his replacement on the SBOE.

I mean... come on...

"Well I disagree with the experts. I mean... someone's gotta stand up to these experts!" - D. McLeroy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another reason to be embarrassed to be a Texan. Or should I say, another reason to be embarrassed to have slick Rick Perry as the Governor of Texas.

Rick Perry: "God Bless Rush Limbaugh"

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>">
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/03/r...h_n_210969.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put yourself in the position of Rick Perry, gearing up for a knock-out political fight with Sen. Hutchison. If all it took was a piece of heavy-stock paper with words printed on it, a pat on the back, and the comment that a non-entity ought to do something for someone in order to generate free publicity for yourself, you'd do it too.

The disappointing thing is that so many people on both sides of the political isle are going to read into it, thinking that Perry is actually operating on principle rather than merely engaging in political maneuvers.

EDIT: Replaced "embarrassing" with "disappointing" to fulfill RedScare's anal-retentive need for semantic consistency.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put yourself in the position of Rick Perry, gearing up for a knock-out political fight with Sen. Hutchison. If all it took was a piece of heavy-stock paper with words printed on it, a pat on the back, and the comment that a non-entity ought to do something for someone in order to generate free publicity for yourself, you'd do it too.

The embarrassing thing is that so many people on both sides of the political isle are going to read into it, thinking that Perry is actually operating on principle rather than merely engaging in political maneuvers.

Yeah, Perry will sink to the lowest of lows for a chance to win cheap political points with the backwash of Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put yourself in the position of Rick Perry, gearing up for a knock-out political fight with Sen. Hutchison. If all it took was a piece of heavy-stock paper with words printed on it, a pat on the back, and the comment that a non-entity ought to do something for someone in order to generate free publicity for yourself, you'd do it too.

The embarrassing thing is that so many people on both sides of the political isle are going to read into it, thinking that Perry is actually operating on principle rather than merely engaging in political maneuvers.

The embarrassment is twofold. First, it is embarrassing that Perry would think Texans would approve of his honoring that fat tub of goo. Secondly, it is embarrassing that it will probably work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The embarrassment is twofold. First, it is embarrassing that Perry would think Texans would approve of his honoring that fat tub of goo. Secondly, it is embarrassing that it will probably work.

If you're the sort of person that values himself on the basis of what non-neighbors think about his neighbors, then yeah, I guess you've got good reason to be embarrassed. Myself, I don't give a crap if my neighbors are fans of any particular talk radio. They could be card-carrying Communists for all I care. It doesn't reflect on me. And I especially don't give a crap what folks outside of my neighborhood think about my neighbors.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're the sort of person that values himself on the basis of what non-neighbors think about his neighbors, then yeah, I guess you've got good reason to be embarrassed. Myself, I don't give a crap if my neighbors are fans of any particular talk radio. They could be card-carrying Communists for all I care. It doesn't reflect on me. And I especially don't give a crap what folks outside of my neighborhood think about my neighbors.

If you really didn't give a crap, then why did you express your embarrassment in post #58? In fact, why have posted in a thread about embarrassment at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, talk about embarrassed. Took you less than 5 minutes of excruciating self-conscious embarrassment to edit a post in an attempt to convince us that you do not care. That's pretty sad.

It is sad, but not for the stated reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the idea of evolution being a gradual process - it is and it isn't. It can occur gradually in some instances, and it can occur abruptly. Most researchers in evolution believe that it is a mixture of gradual and abrupt changes over time. Look up "punctuated equillibrium" and "quantum evolution" to get an idea for just a few of the models for evolution. Classic Darwinian gradualism has been left behind long ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the other threads (I believe this is the second one where I voted should be locked), this IS one-sided bashing, and unless you suddenly jumped in from the next-to-last point, I suggest you stop. You're right that the world is bashing, bigoted, and pointless, and I guess this is an example. No doubt would you agree the world is an evil place, I've seen it, in Texas, on the HAIF, but also the world is full of idiots. Now, I'm not implying that either of us are idiots...I'm sure that in the "real world", you're an intelligent person with rational thoughts.

Just because something happens in the world doesn't mean it has to happen on the HAIF.

The only reason it is one sided is because people such as yourself who believe it so refuse to give their side. We all know we aren't going to sway you, but we still give you our side. Speak up, or shut up (and I really don't mean that rudely).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is a great relief, after talk that Cynthia Dunbar, who doesn't believe in public education (since it undermines the authority of parents and God), was also being considered.

Edited to RETRACT my relief, after reading this, about Gail Lowe:

http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=f12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0b&plckPostId=Blog%3af12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0bPost%3a5697d763-4253-4fc4-bb7c-37f07a6dd87d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Edited by sarahiki
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason it is one sided is because people such as yourself who believe it so refuse to give their side. We all know we aren't going to sway you, but we still give you our side. Speak up, or shut up (and I really don't mean that rudely).

The situation is worsened now. Because the HAIF is relatively new to the rating system, I would likely get low points no matter what I write in the side of anyone. This is highly discouraged--don't downvote because you dislike someone's ideas.

As for Rick Perry, him supporting Rush Limbaugh is totally unmerited but is a bad reason for being "embarrassed to be a Texan". I'm no fan of Rick Perry, but if your soul reason of being embarrassed by Rick Perry because of his support of Limbaugh, that's kind of like being embarrassed by President Obama because he killed a fly. Or thinking Bush should have been impeached because he couldn't say "nuclear" correctly.

If YOU want to do something about it, don't make mean/unmerited insults about Rick Perry or Don McLeroy or whoever, just don't vote for him!

And as for Rush Limbaugh, don't listen! No one's forcing you to listen to him on the radio.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went back and negged the original post because it SHOULD have been titled, "Embarrassed *HE* is a Texan."

This should be interesting to see how it works out in some of the more heated discussions around here.

I'm politically neutral, but it will be quite fascinating to see how it works out with the neggs and positive votes. :)

Rush is an jerk. :)

So is Perry. He just cares about his hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great relief, after talk that Cynthia Dunbar, who doesn't believe in public education (since it undermines the authority of parents and God), was also being considered.

Edited to RETRACT my relief, after reading this, about Gail Lowe:

http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=f12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0b&plckPostId=Blog%3af12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0bPost%3a5697d763-4253-4fc4-bb7c-37f07a6dd87d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Yes - it isn't even the lesser of evils :(

She is a Young Earth Creationist who invariably voted in favor of new science standards that misrepresented accurate and reliable scientific knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Rick Perry, him supporting Rush Limbaugh is totally unmerited but is a bad reason for being "embarrassed to be a Texan". I'm no fan of Rick Perry, but if your soul reason of being embarrassed by Rick Perry because of his support of Limbaugh, that's kind of like being embarrassed by President Obama because he killed a fly. Or thinking Bush should have been impeached because he couldn't say "nuclear" correctly.

If YOU want to do something about it, don't make mean/unmerited insults about Rick Perry or Don McLeroy or whoever, just don't vote for him!

And as for Rush Limbaugh, don't listen! No one's forcing you to listen to him on the radio.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States affords me the right not only to disagree with the policies and actions of Rick Perry and the Board of Education, but also to explain why their policies offend me, and to explain why they are bad for Texas and Texans. I reject your offer to sit silently while these ideologues continue in their quest to take Texas education from one of the worst to the undisputed worst in the US. On the other hand, you are welcome to take your own advice. If it pains you to read about the damage your neighbor is doing to Texas' public education system, you are more than welcome to not read the posts. For proof of the frighteningly poor job that Perry and the Board of Education are doing, I invite you to read an article in The Economist that some other posters mistakenly believe in another thread is a positive article about Texas. Skip past the glowing stuff about population growth and Fortune 500 companies, and read all the education, health and crime rankings that place us at the bottom. Those rankings are the fruits of Perry and McLeroy's labor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States affords me the right not only to disagree with the policies and actions of Rick Perry and the Board of Education, but also to explain why their policies offend me, and to explain why they are bad for Texas and Texans. I reject your offer to sit silently while these ideologues continue in their quest to take Texas education from one of the worst to the undisputed worst in the US. On the other hand, you are welcome to take your own advice. If it pains you to read about the damage your neighbor is doing to Texas' public education system, you are more than welcome to not read the posts. For proof of the frighteningly poor job that Perry and the Board of Education are doing, I invite you to read an article in The Economist that some other posters mistakenly believe in another thread is a positive article about Texas. Skip past the glowing stuff about population growth and Fortune 500 companies, and read all the education, health and crime rankings that place us at the bottom. Those rankings are the fruits of Perry and McLeroy's labor.

That's not what I was saying. You can say that Rush Limbaugh's views are one-sided and bigoted, but you shouldn't call him a "blob of fat" or something along those lines.

It's a bit sad that you all voted -4 on my comment...any hopes that people still had tact were dashed in that moment. But who cares? I tried other tactics earlier in the thread...but I hoped people would listen to that last one.

Or did you see a hidden dare to vote me down and you jumped on it?

Edited by IronTiger
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who should be answering that question general just dismiss people who ask that question entirely. They don't know any better than we do. When will these gits (on both sides) realize that creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. They can coexist just fine. One can address the empirical parts only without ever touching on the divine parts and vice versa and never contradict the other. That said, I don't think creation should be taught in schools simply because different religions have different versions of creation. Teach the bits that are proven, not the bits that are theoretical (which is still an awful lot of it whether people want to admit that or not)

I disagree.

Whether you're talking about the specific field of evolutionary biology, or utilizing the word "evolution" as a broad catch-all for "science", there are many, many scientific findings which directly contradict religious dogmatism (the Earth is 6,000 years old, man co-existed with dinosaurs, and so forth).

Regardless of the millions of accounts of creation espoused by the hundreds of thousands of religions which have existed at one time or another on this planet, there has not been any credible "evidence" put forth that would lead an individual to favor one story over another. Evolution may have gaps, but the evidence at least points us in a direction.

Ultimately though, I have no problem with creationism being taught in school, as long as it's not masqueraded as science. If we decide we should have Religion 101 or Religious Accounts of Creation classes taught in high school, I'm fully in favor of it. In fact, I think the more one learns about religion, the better. But a line needs to be drawn between fables and empirical evidence.

BTW, which parts of creationism are true?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Don McLeroy's anti-science rhetoric ramblings have received a lot national attention. It’s totally embarrassing. How is it possible we have this retard as the Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education? Please contact your Texas Senators and get this guy out of office.�

watch McLeroy's video

If you're embarrassed to be a Texan, can you imagine what it would be like to an IOUer? Do they they put Anold's mug on those things (IOU in CA)? In other words it could be worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None. Perhaps only the end result... that we are here. The entire creationist idea is absurd.

It's one thing to disregard McLeroy...support him or not, he is a controversial person, but to shoot down creationism as a whole is an insult to millions of people: Muslims, Christians, Jews, and several other religions believe that some divine being(s) created life as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to disregard McLeroy...support him or not, he is a controversial person, but to shoot down creationism as a whole is an insult to millions of people: Muslims, Christians, Jews, and several other religions believe that some divine being(s) created life as we know it.

You are talking about different ideas using the same term. This distinction is in the first paragraph of "Creationism" on Wikipedia; it's a pretty basic idea. As you put it above, "creationism" is used very loosely, referring to some divine power being involved in the creation of life.

In contrast, the "creationism" espoused by the politicians discussed in this thread is the second kind (quote from Wikipedia):

In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.

So the creationists are rejecting evolution by natural selection. Many people who believe in evolution do not reject God or a divine role in the process.

So no, I don't think anyone is insulting millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Just the ignorant ones who refuse to accept science. ;)

Edited by sarahiki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to disregard McLeroy...support him or not, he is a controversial person, but to shoot down creationism as a whole is an insult to millions of people: Muslims, Christians, Jews, and several other religions believe that some divine being(s) created life as we know it.

The fact that someone may be offended by another's lack of belief in their creation fairy tale is of little consequence. Why be offended at all?

Why would a Muslim be offended that a Hindu has a different creation myth?

Why would a Christian Scientist be offended if a Seventh Day Adventist doesn't believe in Thetans?

Why would a Mormon be offended that a Buddhist doesn't believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

Whether or not the fact that there are many, many different accounts of creation espoused by many, many religions throughout time leads one to the conclusion that they're all a bunch of hogwash, to be offended by another's lack of belief in their really neat story is ridiculous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about different ideas using the same term. This distinction is in the first paragraph of "Creationism" on Wikipedia; it's a pretty basic idea. As you put it above, "creationism" is used very loosely, referring to some divine power being involved in the creation of life.

In contrast, the "creationism" espoused by the politicians discussed in this thread is the second kind (quote from Wikipedia):

So the creationists are rejecting evolution by natural selection. Many people who believe in evolution do not reject God or a divine role in the process.

So no, I don't think anyone is insulting millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Just the ignorant ones who refuse to accept science. ;)

It's a valid disctinction.

However, not only are the Creationists rejecting/refusing to accept evolution by natural selection, they are also attempting to masquerade an extremely unscientific proposition as just that; science. A fable does not belong in a science classroom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the creationists are rejecting evolution by natural selection. Many people who believe in evolution do not reject God or a divine role in the process.

That's true.

I believe it is a mixture of both science and creationism. Just like blind faith in religion isn't a valid argument, why should blind faith in science be?

But to say something like "The entire creationist idea is absurd" is one of those comments that are the blanket prejudice comments. And if that's what LTAWACS thinks, fine, but he shouldn't be telling it on the HAIF.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if that's what LTAWACS thinks, fine, but he shouldn't be telling it on the HAIF.

Well, here's what I think. I think you are a petulent little brat, who throws a tantrum every time sometimes disagrees, or even dares mention that they have an opinion that differs from your own. LTAWACS has every right to post his opinion on this forum, as long as it comforms to forum rules. You also have that right, even the right to complain that other people's opinions should not be posted. I have the right to point out your inability to accept that others may not have the same narrow minded views as you, as I am doing right now.

And, of course, you have the right to whine about my opinion, which I fully expect you to do. However, here's a suggestion. When you feel the need to disagree, do so. Your disagreement is welcome. But, when you then demand that others' opinions should be banned, you step over the line. Please respect other posters' free speech rights while demanding your own.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point. LTAWACS is free to disagree with creationism. That wasn't a disagreement, that was an attack. Tell me, is there a difference between:

"I believe Obama is a terrible president." (a comment like this is tolerable with some facts).

or

"Obama SUCKS and every person who STILL SUPPORTS HIM is a mindless LIBERAL DRONE."

HAIF is a place to discuss the city of Houston, its neighbors, architecture, infrastructure, and urban topics in general. While its primary focus is architecture, the discussions can be on any topic that affects the city and life within its borders.

What is Encouraged:

Original thought. Diverse opinions. Knowledge. If you post a message containing facts, be prepared to back them up with a citation, a link, or both. There are many intelligent people in this forum, and they know when people make things up.

What is Discouraged:

Posting messages just to raise one's total post count. Messages that are little more than "Me, too!" Unsubstantiated claims. Trolling. Flaming. Blatant commercial or promotional postings.

What is Prohibited:

Vulgarity. Profanity. Personal attacks. Explicit discussions of sex or bodily functions. HAIF is a resource open to all, and many schoolchildren use it for researching their projects. Let's keep the discussions on-topic and family-friendly.

The administrators and moderators of this forum have neither the time, nor the desire, to police every single post made here. It's simply not possible. That's why we rely on you to let us know when you see something questionable. It could be a photograph, a spam post, or someone being exceptionally rude. HAIF is a community, and communities only work when we all pitch in. So be sure to use the "Report" button when you see something amiss.

I'd say the first one you broke, and the second one, LTAWACS broke.

Edited by IronTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point. LTAWACS is free to disagree with creationism. That wasn't a disagreement, that was an attack. Tell me, is there a difference between:

"I believe Obama is a terrible president." (a comment like this is tolerable with some facts).

or

"Obama SUCKS and every person who STILL SUPPORTS HIM is a mindless LIBERAL DRONE."

I'd say the first one you broke, and the second one, LTAWACS broke.

I disagree. I was not being exceptionally rude.

Oh and congrats on your 666th post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...