Pic Of The Moment: Profiles In Cowardice: Scott Walker Afraid To Answer Evolution Question

[EarlG]

Wisconsin Gov. Walker refuses to answer evolution question

Follow @demunderground

[3catwoman3]

1. Walker makes the case...

...for DE-volution. What an idiot.

[yeoman6987]

27. He said he didn't want a gotcha moment!

The Republicans are deathly afraid of the media. Lol.

[gordianot]

2. In first world countries generally speaking only American Republicans are asked that question.

That is why they are asked about Evolution, it is fun to either listen to their denial answer or attempts to dodge the question.

[yuiyoshida]

3. So he would rather Punt it away

than kick a field goal...good one Walker!

[libdem4life]

4. Religion (which it is for many) should not be made a litmus test for the Presidency. We

have had, other than GWB, Presidents who believe in Creationism. This may be unpopular to state, but nevertheless, it's about the only thing I agree with him on.

Edit: I agree with the decision to punt and not drag it out.

[Lochloosa]

6. By punting he is dragging it out. I want someone with the courage to state his positions...

and then be able to defend them. "Punting" is the cowards way out.

[libdem4life]

9. Why do we need to know? Should we ask him if he believes in faith healing?

That's both scientific and religious. Again. Lots of Democrats believe in the God Thing and lots of Republicans believe (even if unexpressed) in the Science Thing. It should not be a political decision. It should not be dragged out. It should be dropped.

[gcomeau]

11. Why should people care about basic scientific literacy in their presidential candidates?

The same reason they should care if they know how to read and write.

[libdem4life]

30. So how do you feel about faith healing? It is scientific and it is religious.

[gcomeau]

54. In what possible sense is faith healing scientific?

Or do you mean it's "scientific" in the sense that there is overwhelming scientific data that it's complete and total bullshit that endangers the health of anyone subjected to it in place of actual medical care ?

(Guess how I feel about it)

[louis-t]

18. Somehow, I believe that should he become president

(gulp) he would have all KINDS of opinions on the subject.

[libdem4life]

31. My point it is not a litmus test. He has plenty of other obvious flaws, that to drag people's

religion into is not necessary. I've been both sides of this fence.

[louis-t]

56. And I'm telling you he is hypocritical.

Regardless of your point, him saying he shouldn't have an opinion on the subject is a lie, because he does, and because he would certainly regale us all with his opinion if he were to get elected.

[libdem4life]

57. Good lord, I'm not excusing Scott Walker for being an idiot... just saying that the question was

inappropriate as it is a religious matter. And he didn't say he doesn't have an opinion. He "punted"...which was probably the right thing to do.

GWB didn't "regale us" with his opinions on this subject...just his incompetency. There have been many in high office that go with the religious line here. It's just inappropriate, that's all. There are plenty of other political ways to disqualify him. So touchy.

[angrychair]

21. sorry but you miss the point

The "god thing" and the "science thing" are not the same "thing". One is based on faith and the other is based on fact. One is what you hope to be true and the other is what has proven to be true. The question is silly though. Asking someone if evolution is real is like asking if water is wet. You can 'believe' or 'hope' or 'have faith' that you will have ice cream this weekend but it is a empirical fact that living things evolved.

[libdem4life]

32. Yes, they are. The relate to strongly held beliefs. There is no actual proof of either one.

There are varying opinions of Creationism and also varying explanations/opinions of Evolution. I personally think they both are correct. Figure that one out. Today's Science is tomorrow's Fantasy.

Check back a few centuries of real history. Like Gilda Radner says "There's always somethin'"

[angrychair]

35. your reply was very polite

I want to make it very clear that I appreciate that and it is not my intention to come across rude but I could not disagree more strongly. Evolution is not a belief or a guess, it is an absolute. Species evolve. that is why I made the point about the ridiculousness of the question. Its like asking someone if water is wet. The creation story laid out in the Christian bible is as improbable and simplistic as the one in Greek mythology. There is no comparison between an iron age allegory (Genesis) and hundreds of years of study and research that established evolution as a basic scientific principle.
That aside, I truly enjoy have a reasoned and pleasant discussion and look forward to many more.

[libdem4life]

36. Thanks ... will just mention Quantum Physics has turned many areas of previously believed Science at

least subject to further study. There are Universes we know nothing about. Particles within particles within particles being discovered on a regular basis...for the first time in our itty bitty speck of time.

As far as defending The Bible's specific version...all the begats, which is how they came up with the time frame, the 4,000 years and such, not so much. There are many, many Creation Stories from indigenous peoples long before The Bible supposed events...none of which are provable either.

Zecharia Sitchin, a Jewish historian, came up with some fascinating anthropological/historical study with a lot of hieroglyphics and actual articles/drawings,... 8 books worth ... that blew another potential hole in both sides of the story. People mock him because he proves/infers new scientific territory, but he contributed to the literature.

Either/or is just too neat a solution for such a profound question when we live in Universes and space and time we do not even know the questions to, let alone the answers. Einstein was once considered a fool...I could go on and on.

Ha...and to think all of this about Scott Walker. LOL.

Good to keep minds open.

[olegramps]

53. When was Einstein considered a fool? Oh, maybe by some "creationists".

[bvf]

66. There's a commonly held myth

about his supposedly having been a poor math student.

I've never seen anything to back this up, but there's a lot out there that calls bullshit on it.

I'm not surprised you haven't gotten a reply as yet from the person making the claim here.

[gcomeau]

55. Sigh...

Quantum Physics has turned many areas of previously believed Science at least subject to further study

No.

ALL areas of science are ALWAYS subject to further study. That's what the difference between science and religion is.


And the fact that some people thought Einstein was wrong until the data proved him right does not equate to "Einstein was once considered a fool". And would people PLEASE stop pointing at things like that to justify believing whatever ridiculous totally unsupported notion they feel like? Einstein had to actually put in the work to *show* he was right. I guarantee Einstein was never walking around saying things like "Oh yeah! Well... maybe you think I'm wrong but, but, people thought Galileo was wrong once too! So There!"

And then storming off in a huff just expecting people to take him at his word after that.

No, he put in the work and generated the data and proved his position. So is someone else wants their crazy ridiculous idea that defies all our understanding of how the world works to be accepted the same way? THEY CAN DO THE SAME DAMN WORK. Until then, they're not worth paying attention to. Waste of time. And they sure as fuck should not be compared to Einstein, that is an insult to a great mind.

[libdem4life]

58. I can't believe I'm continuing this...as I said, I've been on both sides and there are many Great

People who believe in God/Godess/Energy/The Big Bang/The Great Mother as The Infinite and Creator of all. And some of us believe they are synonymous...there was both Evolution and Creation and they are both valid hypotheses.

All are belief systems because, in spite of the cover of Science or the belief of Religion, we don't really KNOW what was truth aeons ago.

[gcomeau]

59. Please stop it.

All are belief systems because, in spite of the cover of Science or the belief of Religion, we don't really KNOW what was truth aeons ago.

Again... NO.


One side of that issue is a set of conclusions based on the preponderance of a truly *massive* weight of evidence.

The other side is a set of conclusions reached the absence of or in direct contradiction to said evidence.


Do not attempt to construct a false equivalency between the two by declaring them both just "belief systems". They could not be more different and it is the height of dishonesty to pretend they are the same.

[libdem4life]

61. The massive weight of evidence is of evolution of the animal species...and that seems appropriate

But the link from Neanderthals to the Sapiens ... the ability to perceive good and evil, feel guilt, pre plan et al, ... that is the link that I've not seen and still evades the Scientific group.

Again, I think both theories are compatible. The Bible begins with Adam and Eve and the acknowledgment of Good and Evil and references the Primordial Chaos. Sitchin's work is also informative.

Keeping an open mind is a good thing.

Oh, and don't patronize. It's unbecoming.

[gcomeau]

62. Ugh...

"But the link from Neanderthals to the Sapiens ... the ability to perceive good and evil, feel guilt, pre plan et al, ... that is the link that I've not seen and still evades the Scientific group. "

What in the world are you even talking about? That Neanderthals and homo sapiens are related? (FYI, as more like evolutionary cousins, Neanderthals were not direct ancestors in any significant sense). That has been conclusively demonstrated using the genetic evidence.


And the ability to "perceive good and evil"? Good and evil are evaluations, not perceptions. And the ability of the brain to evaluate (or perceive for that matter) is a product of it's material function, which has also been rather conclusively demonstrated to have evolved over time.


I have a perfectly open mind. I just don't have the proverbial "so open my brain falls out" mind.

[libdem4life]

64. Here's some Wiki info...I'll let the other assumptions pass

Rise of Homo sapiens
Further information: Recent African origin of modern humans, Multiregional origin of modern humans, Anatomically modern humans, Archaic human admixture with modern humans and Early human migrations
Map of early human migrations according to mitochondrial population genetics (numbers are millennia before present).

By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period (50,000 BP), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed.[42][43] As modern humans spread out from Africa they encountered other hominids such as Homo neanderthalensis and the so-called Denisovans. The nature of interaction between early humans and these sister species has been a long-standing source of controversy, the question being whether humans replaced these earlier species or whether they were in fact similar enough to interbreed, in which case these earlier populations may have contributed genetic material to modern humans.[44] Recent studies of the human and Neanderthal genomes suggest gene flow between archaic Homo sapiens and Neanderthals and Denisovans.[45][46][47]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

[gcomeau]

72. Thanks for information I already had I suppose?

I'm guessing that last sentence was what you assumed I needed to know?

There's a reason I said they weren't direct ancestors in any significant sense instead of just saying they weren't ancestors. I was already aware there was some gene flow. Some. Not a lot.

And I'm flabbergasted that ONE POST AGO you were claiming you had not seen the link between these species in the evidence, that it was still "evading Science", and now here you are posting a link that references the genetic studies done that show exactly what you claim hadn't been shown as i I was the one who needed to be educated on the matter when you were the one just denying everything in that article!

[libdem4life]

73. No, it does not create the link...not the link..that is correct. It refers to the last set of genes.

For a read, not for the faint of heart, is Zecharia Sitchen, who came the closest as I've ever read that makes an historically relevant case for both. His 8 books have since been reduced to one called "Genesis Revisited". He's a Hebrew Historian that has spent his life delving into this archeological and anthropological material. He's not popular with either group. Imagine that.

His books just reinforced my own belief...and it is a belief because there is NO WAY to know for sure...that both evolution and creationism are factors in the rise of homosapiens.

[gcomeau]

75. Sigh...

Yes it bloody well DOES show the link. That's what those words you just linked to mean. Genetic studies that show the existence and magnitude of gene transfer between two species is the EXACT GODDAMN DEFINITION of "the link" between them.

He's a Hebrew Historian that has spent his life delving into this archeological and anthropological material. He's not popular with either group. Imagine that.

You mean this whackjob?

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Revisited-Chronicles-Zecharia-Sitchin/dp/0380761599

Know what the most relevant part of that page is to this discussion?

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #47,402 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#90 in Books > Literature & Fiction > [font size="8"]Genre Fiction [/font size]> Metaphysical


You seriously just referenced a book that says ancient humans were genetically engineered by aliens to work as mining slaves as support for your position? SERIOUSLY?

.and it is a belief because there is NO WAY to know for sure

Damn, if only there was some way to... oh... analyze the genetic material of two different groups in a manner that would tell us pretty much conclusively what the relationship between them was...

Oh wait...

[olegramps]

52. Evolution is a fact, not an opinion and is based on solid evidence.

In contrast to "Creationism" which has no, absolutely no facts to support it just as ridiculous people believe the earth was "created" 6000 years ago. Myths do not challenge facts or share the same degree of validity.

[libdem4life]

60. Sorry, it's still a theory, albeit many believe it. But that "missing link" between homo erectus

and homo sapiens still persists...regardless of all the illustrations and tidbits of anthropological evidence. To me, this is how they connect...a Divine link between the two. There. That honors both hypothesis. I'm not the only one, either. They are complementary and I think that makes sense...both conclusions rely on belief...not actual proof.

Those who are actually interested can access the books of Zecharia Sitchin...well researched, a highly regarded historian, and also a few intellectual leaps. That's just it. All require "Leaps" of some kind.

PS...Creationism does not require the 6,000 year thingy...that has been broken down as a Jewish parable. A Year is not necessarily 365 days nor does it evolve from the addition of the "begats" in the OT.

[olegramps]

67. Its a theory substantiated by facts. You seem to equate theory as having no basis.

The fact of the matter is that the biblical accords are nothing more than superstition and myth. Now that can be substantiated by facts. You sound like Palin with your "thingy". Your argument is drawn for the so-called "monkey" trial in which the argument to support evolution questioned how long a day was used to support evolution. Sorry, but the Old Testament clearly defines a day as the passage of one revolution of the earth. The fact is that Jews don't attributed the creation stories as being scientific fact just as they don't attribute the so-called "fall" of man with any doctrinal validity. It has been Christians who have insisted on a literal interpretation of Jewish scripture. This covered extensively in the Mishnah's collection of oral tradition.

[libdem4life]

68. Sorry, The Missing Link is still Missing. And Jesus is coming soon...circa 30 AD.

I absolutely listen to theories, especially those who have good information behind them. Believing them is a completely different relationship. They are both Theories. Both have "facts" they cite. Neither is provable...so the debate continues. Both are powerful belief systems.

Just a note: few of the entire Christian faith believe in the literal interpretation...it's folly ... so we leave it to our beloved right wing Fundamentalists.

Disclaimer: I'm a Christian-Hindu-Buddhist...in that order...and a Sociology/Anthropology/Theology student. They make for wonderful Trinities that work for me.

Each to their own. We can bang holy scriptures and science textbooks over heads for ever. The science textbooks change regularly, as they should.

Peace.

[olegramps]

70. So now Creationism is a theory without any supporting evidence.

I really don't care what you believe. You are free to believe in the tooth fairy and goblins, however, when you attempt to advance myths without any evidence in contrast to evolution that has massive evidence to support it, then don't expect everyone to provide it the same degree of credibility. I would suggest that you avail yourself of the extensive investigation of the Mishnah before concluding what Jewish theologians actually have determined is dogma. I would suggest a book, "Where Judaism Differed." Most Christians would be very surprised that what they regard as dogma is discounted as such by Jewish theologians.

I must agree science books will change regularly. That is simply because they are based on the expanding knowledge that is discovered through investigation. This is in contrast to myths that are nothing more than imaginative rambling of privative people that are unchanging. This is no different than attempting to prove that Mickey Mouse is a real being. His existence is solely dependent of the man's imagination.

[libdem4life]

71. Yeah, whatever. Peace.

[gcomeau]

74. You are misinformed. There is no "missing link" between erectus and sapiens.

Or alternatively, every time you fill in a "missing link" people can claim there are now two more smaller "missing links" between that and what came before it and what came after it... which after a certain point just becomes stupid but people keep doing it anyway.



But the human evolutionary record is solid. However you want to parse it.

[img][/img]



All this "missing link" talk is creationist bullshit that they cling to desperately to try to justify not accepting the evidence.

[libdem4life]

76. Cool lines there. I believe we evolved so I'm not a Biblical Creationist. I'm more from the

cosmic contingent...We Are Not Alone and had some help making the leap and it was a good bit earlier than 6,000 years ago.

I've read and studied all sides from an academic view to personal research. Also, I can agree with those on both sides. And it's still just "a belief".

[gcomeau]

77. Yes, I saw your supporting reference works you cited.

A work of fiction claiming humans were genetically engineered to work gold mines by their alien overlords.



I'm pretty sure that explains why it's so difficult having a rational conversation with you on this topic.

[libdem4life]

78. As I said, unpopular, but I'm sure you never read them, so yes,

rational conversations are tough. He reads Sumerian Cuneiform and was a Hebrew historian. He had more hieroglyphics and ancient artifacts and hard "proof" than Anyone on either side. He did, of course draw some conclusions, but at least there was some real research and hard facts behind it.

So, your "a work of fiction" does not surprise me. Tell me you were curious enough to read all the books, as I did, and then I'll put a bit more relevance behind your kneejerk retort.

Being PC has never been important to me. Peace.

[gcomeau]

79. As you didn't mention... FICTION.

Having a tough time processing that part are we?


And no, I have no more desire to read that nonsense than the works of L Ron Hubbard. I am already familiar with the actual real life data that shows that that hypothesis is complete and total nonsense. I really don't need to spend hours of my life reading over the made up crap that for some reason you have decided to embrace as "hard evidence".

[libdem4life]

81. Right. Got it. So sensitive. I said "belief", but alas, lots of people believe in the Fiction that

is the Bible, or at least a big part of it, too. Each to their own. I did enjoy reading the comments of those who had actually read the book/s on Amazon, in looking it up. None were like yours. So, there you have it.

Again, don't take it so personally. Peace.

[gcomeau]

82. Yes, many gullible fools exist...

...and write reviews of a work of fiction on Amazon as if it was a history text.

Quelle surprise.

[libdem4life]

83. OK...name calling and labels...Peace Out. n/t

[gcomeau]

84. Bye. Say hello to this guy for me.

[img][/img]

[Lochloosa]

22. Yes, we should know if he believes in faith healing. That would be an automatic disqualification.

IMHO.

[libdem4life]

33. It's absolutely scientific. It has been proven many times. Doctors just say, we don't know how it

happened.

[Lochloosa]

37. I do believe the mind can and does miraculous things.

Devine intervention, that I don't believe. But, I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mine so we'll call a truce.

[bvf]

38. If there's no explanation for faith healing,

it's definitely not science.

Science seeks explanation via new theories that may or may not supplant existing ones, depending on experimental results.

If you can't explain experimental results, that's naive inductivism. Just ask the turkey fattened by a farmer who is fed daily up until the day before Thanksgiving.

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS218/science/method/problems.html

[libdem4life]

39. OK. Explain energy.

[bvf]

40. E = mc^2

That's about as succinctly as someone once thought a fool (as you pointed out) could put it.

What next? Explain mass?

[libdem4life]

63. Yes, recite that to someone who needs a miracle and is dying of a dread disease. Have you ever known

or experienced this? I doubt it. I have myself been diagnosed with a terminal disease and know others...the mind/god/goddess/infinite have proven life/death is not necessarily contained by a mathematical formula. Did the doctors and their tests and diagnoses make a mistake? Or, are their other forces of energy in the Universe that are able to be harnessed for Good?

That's an real life example of Positive Energy.

[bvf]

65. You asked and I answered.

"Yes, recite that to someone who needs a miracle and is dying of a dread disease. Have you ever known or experienced this? I doubt it." (Emphasis mine.)

That's rather presumptuous of you. I'll leave it there.

[libdem4life]

69. Should we ask candidates if they believe in the Power of Prayer or the Power of Positive Thinking?

They are pretty much the same, in my experience, as many others. I have seen what we would call miracles...yes, medical miracles, and all they say is 1) we must have made a diagnostic mistake, or 2) Can't explain it, but tests usually don't lie. If one has not experienced this event, in someone known to them, it is certainly difficult to accept.

But not to get off the subject of The Origin of Human Life...it took an Energy that we can't find or label and it was a significant Leap...therefore, a claim can be made for both. And that's my opinion...The Infinite Energy...call it what you will...and Science, which has evolved and is still evolving itself, are compatible.

[TeamPooka]

13. That a politician would force his religious beliefs on others through legislation is a litmus test

that I approve of giving.
Walker failed the test.

[yeoman6987]

28. Will he do that?

He's been Governor for four years. Has he forced his religion on anyone? I don't know but it should be easy to find out and call him on it.

[olegramps]

51. I can only suppose that he doesn't have any firm conviction on evolution.

He is a wishy-washy piece of crap.

[midnight]

5. The Real Reason that the International Affairs Experts at Chatham Hall laughed when Governor Walker

"Punted"



"The Cambridge (UK, not Wisconsin) Dictionary of the English Language describes what a "punter" is in the UK.
punter noun (gambler)
› UK a person who gambles (= risks money guessing the result of something):Bookmakers are offering punters odds of 6–1 on the horse Red Devil winning the race.

punter noun (customer)

› UK informal a customer; a user of services or buyer of goods:Many hotels are offering discounts in an attempt to attract punters/pull in the punters.› UK slang a person who uses the services of a prostitute"


http://www.uppitywis.org/blogarticle/real-reason-international-affairs-experts-chatham-hall-laughed-w

[central scrutinizer]

19. Like the visiting American soccer coach

who asked one of the English players to "shag some balls".

[SpankMe]

7. The DNC had better fucking add this to the database.

All this needs to come out in force in election time advertising if this unfeeling despot gets the nomination. He probably won't, but still.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. The freeDUMB party

[calimary]

10. Take this to the bank: IF, Heaven forbid, he were to win the Presidency,

he would NOT "punt" on ANYTHING that would involve forcing his extremist wrong-wing agenda down the throats of all the rest of us, and dragging us all back to the Bronze Age.

GUARANTEED.

[TeamPooka]

12. The British people must think we're idiots for continuing to elect idiots like this.

[Stonepounder]

16. I've got to admit that my wife was somewhat taken aback

when she was in Britain the first time someone said to her "I'll come by this evening and knock you up".

[Still In Wisconsin]

14. I wonder if Walker knows what the term "punt" is slang for in Europe...

"Punting" refers to the act of soliciting or patronizing a prostitute.

Scott: "I'm going to punt."

Brits: "snicker snicker..."

[livingonearth]

48. I did not know that. That is hilarious.

Doesn't this dope have any work in Wisconsin to do. Why is he over there making an ass of himself for all to see? Can governors from this country make foreign policy now, or this to be used as foreign policy experience for later? I think the good people of Wisconsin need to demand he get to work.

[Fred Sanders]

15. Any religious belief question of a politician is ridiculous to even ask. Except if it is Obama.

Not like any of the Fox/Koch Kandidates have mentioned their personal religious beliefs may influence law and policy, have they?

[MADem]

17. Footage just in of that exchange--here ya go!

What a profile in courage...

[Initech]

20. I'm reminded of an old Bill Hicks bit:

"Ever notice how the people who don't believe in evolution look really unevolved?"

[bvf]

41. LOL!

Walker does have a vaguely chimplike look about him, no?

[Arkana]

23. Holy shit.

To weasel around an answer is one thing, but to ANNOUNCE that you're weaseling out is an entirely new level of greasy, mushy equivocation.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Walker is a member of the Flat Earth Society (the Republican Party), so of course he doesn't believe

in evolution.

[47of74]

25. Well I have two words that explain Mr. Walker: Missing Link.

As in his being one.

[Amimnoch]

26. Generally speaking I agree with this statement.

Faith based questions in general should not be a part of the presidential election process imo.

HOWEVER, when a candidate, who has political history, and has made obvious executive decisions based on his or her faith, then these questions are open season.

For example, asking Presidential candidate (at the time) Obama if he was a Muslim was completely improper since none of his votes, or statements during his previous term as Senator or prior gave indication to faith based voting.

Mr. Walker on the other hand has:
"Marriage is to be between one man and one woman." (Nov 2005) - If he can prove that this statement and position has no religious basis I'll eat my shoe.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. It's not a faith based question

It's a question of whether or not a potential President has a basic understanding of science.

[bvf]

45. Exactly this!

A good follow-up question could have been, "Do you believe the Earth revolves around the sun?"

[Thor_MN]

34. Translation: The Koch brothers haven't told what my opinion is yet.

[Madmiddle]

42. As is typical of republicans

Walkers stupidity will shine on the national stage. His ignorance will will echo across the news waves, provided MSM doesn't go full GOP, if we even see a Republican debate.

[Towlie]

43. Politicians should not be asked if they believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Instead, they should be asked if they believe in evolution.

A scientific theory is a means of describing observations. A good theory describes a wide range of observations and makes reliable predictions. Evolution is an observation. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific means of describing the process of evolution, and anyone who says that he doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution should be invited to share his own competing theory of how evolution works and what drives it, with the caveat that a theory involving a magic invisible sky wizard is not very likely to win a Nobel prize.

[lebkuchen]

46. I wrote to Chatham House

to suggest a follow-up question of our GOP visitors: What are your views on heliocentricity?

and don't let them "punt."

[catbyte]

44. That sleepy eyed dope is also a pandering dumbass. Quelle surprise.

[polynomial]

47. The glass is half full or half empty

Actually evolution has to be part of the dialog within the context of modern technology and contemporary intellectual grants in arts and science, especially University grants.

What get me upset is this whole issue is ditched, convoluted to confusion because of that religious test.

The Republican right is just frustrating, deploying Gabriel’s horn about abortion then use divine deity at the same breath to avoid progress in development understanding the physiology of the human body.

There is so much tax money that is appropriated for the National Science Foundation, or the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NASA space exploration being man’s next frontier because the energy of the sun will eventually exhaust itself, that is fundamental evolution that will impact everyone.

Unless of course our politicians ignore climate change being man made, or by Monty pythons orbital flying circus theory called atheism, other than depending on a life force called God.

In fact the buzz is, there are some fundamental changes in the next International Science Conference, 2016 which includes the biggies like the Royal Society to change a few of the basic Constance used in science. That could affect the price of precious metals, or elements in the international market and the balance of power.

These science theories and Constance are revised about every century. The buzz I see on the Internet about the basic way mathematics is taught has become out moated because of the invention of the personal computer at the turn of the century.

There is more buzz that the calculus for one dimension, two dimension, and three dimension can only realized in a full robust or penetrating way by the computer projection. Two dimension text book are being characterized as a method, 2D, is out moated or obsolete.

There is a generation right now of retiring persons with the unique living experience that mastered engineering skills beginning with the slide rule no computers, only information tables and graphs with cathode ray electronics no LED or memory programming sophistication, even before the Herman Hollerith card…

There is a certain flavor to this knowledge that is not obsolete, many through time like myself always needed to update and train myself as this technology moved forward…that training never ends. That’s called evolution…

[Orsino]

49. What a weakling.

Modern money politics breeds craven dumbasses.

[Paladin]

50. That cowardly response will follow Walker around for the rest of his life.

Can't wait for the tea party candidates to use it against him in the Repub debates. What a chump.

[Blue Owl]

80. Why isn't it Game Over for this Gomer?

n/t