Strolling with a skeptical biochemist
[Hat Tip: Ms. Sandwalk]
How about Alan T? It's his centenary year, and the Brits are rightly apologetic for driving him to suicide after he single-handedly won them the war.
That's a bit of an overstatement as I think that Eisenhower, Patton, and Montgomery had a little something to do with winning the war, with an unwitting assist from Frankenberger.
There is also some question as to whether Turing really committed suicide.
Time for a new mascot. Way overdue.
I think the idea was that any riders who are creationist would refuse at that fence.
Great find, thank you for that.@Konrad: Alan Turing's centenary hasn't been forgotten, he is celebrated on a stamp this year.http://www.royalmail.com/britons-of-distinctionSadly they didn't use his face but one of the devices he used.
darwin insisted in his second book that woman were biologically intellectually inferior to men.Only by special concentration on attributes on some women and then breeding them could possibly EVOLVE them up into the higher intelligence of men.SO since sports is a result of the mind working on the body one must presume he would not bother watching the women in their sports.He would just be watching people not very good but still there.i don't agree with dArwin as I'm a creationist and i see women as born equal with men and who do well at sports using their mind on the body they have.Darwin wouldn't agree with placing women on equal levels with men where skill is relevant.I wouldn't have his picture there.these Brits seem desperate to show off.Darwin , like the old empire, is a wrong idea.
"i don't agree with dArwin as I'm a creationist and i see women as born equal with men and who do well at sports using their mind on the body they have."Creationists take Genesis literally, right? Genesis 3:16 Reads: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and **he shall rule over thee**."It doesn't seem like your god is into equal opportunity...
Byers: darwin insisted in his second book that woman were biologically intellectually inferior to men. Only by special concentration on attributes on some women and then breeding them could possibly EVOLVE them up into the higher intelligence of men.Please copy-n-paste the relevant passage from Darwin. Do not ever again paraphrase Darwin. Creationists are deeply ignorant of the history of science, and have a long miserable history of racism and sexism.As for creationists being sexist, there are a million quotes. Here's George Gilder, an ID proponent and the Discovery Institute's go-to guy for sexism and ethnic bigotry.George Gilder: "The Women’s Movement tragically reduces female sexuality to the terms of male sexuality. When this happens, she reduces herself to the male level of recreational sex."[In the first draft of this crap, Gilder probably wrote, “She lowers herself to the male level…” I guess after many snickers, he changed it in version two.]"Paradoxically, when that happens the woman loses all her power over men"[Not if she’s got a Ph.D. or an M.D. etc.---which most creationists and ID proponents never achieve. And which would be easier for women to acquire if sexist assholes like George Gilder didn’t lie about women’s abilities.]"and the reverence and respect toward the procreative potential of woman is lost. And that really destroys the family."[Translation: if women give sexist assholes like Gilder what they want and beg for, then it’s the woman who has destroyed the family. Not the men, who wanted it and begged for it and sometimes forced it on them. The distinction between conservative Christians and Wahhabi Muslims is nil.]"But if the power of “choice” is given up, the woman actually ascends to a higher level of sexuality"[And likewise, if black people would just give up their power of “choice” and go back to picking cotton for Massah, they would ascend to to a higher level of blah blah blah I’m an intellectual blah blah blah. Right-wing think tanks actually pay these people to write this shit! These are their intellectual geniuses.]"and her body attains an almost mystical power over men."[Why is it that her body must attain mystical power over men? Why can’t she get some respect for her brains or talents? Oh, because sexist assholes like George Gilder feel threatened when they meet the countless, countless women who are more accomplished than they are, and who have gotten that way in spite of the obstacles thrown in their way by sexist assholes and conservative Christians.] "...By professing lesbianism and promiscuity, she [Camille Paglia] gains access to campuses where I could never speak. She is also willing to recognize what I have been saying, that men are inferior sexually–they are probably inferior morally–but they are superior in the workplace and in the great creative ventures outside the family circle. This has been true throughout human history and always will be true." [I know many women scientists whose achievements are far greater than those of all ID creationists put together, over the last 120 years.Whenever a pseudo-intellectual ID moron like George Gilder is in the same room with any female M.D.s or Ph.D.s in the physical or life sciences, those women are “superior in the workplace and in the great creative ventures” to every ID creationist in the room. Gilder has never in his life concocted a single original scientific hypothesis, and tested it by comparing it against observations, and he knows it.This non-scientist, ID creationist thumbsucker burns with envy of the real scientific achievements of women in the sciences.] "The denial of it [superiority of men over women] is perverse and destructive..." Not as perverse and destructive as creationism, which has a long, miserable history of supporting sexism, racism, eugenics, Nazism, anti-Semitism and genocide.
Marie Curie, Lisa Meitner, Chien-Shiung Wu, Lisa Randall, Maria Goeppert Mayer just to name a few.
Hee, hee! I saw this and wondered how it would play in certain states! He's on the ten pound note too. Dembski - admittedly tongue in cheek - suggested on UD a while back that conscientiously-objecting visitors to the UK should ask for two fivers instead.
I am pretty sure that I knew of a somewhat famous scientist whose name was Isaac, but nothing else comes to mind ...
I think it was Isaac Asimov, a biochemist.
Yes! That sounds exactly like a famous scientist with some fame. Thanks! This doubt was killing me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
They can't use a picture of young, sideburns Darwin? They have to use a picture of old, gloomy, bearded, Chagas disease Darwin?
Darwin did say this about women's intellect.Its in the 'Descent of man" and is not a secret.If he did say it does it mean he is a failure as a researcher?Darwin taught that everything evolved from something else and man evolving higher then "other" animals leads open the door that mankind did not evolve at the same rate and with same results.he is clear about this.I wonder if in classrooms in schools IF kids could question Darwins ideas on women's intellect or would they be censored?Darwin was quite elaborate on how to possibly raise women up to the level of men.I think evolutionists should own to saying , at least somtimes, Darwin was wrong.Unless of coarse on this issue they don't think so.
You and other creationists teach that everyone devolved from Adam and Eve. But creationists all believed that some races devolved more than others.Creationists were always more sexist and more racist that evolutionists at every era of history. There's no comparison. They were clear about this.The creationists who founded fundamentalism in the US and tried to ban evolution in the 1920's went on to become supporters of Hitler and Nazi anti-Semitism in the 1930's.I think evolutionists should own to saying , at least somtimes, Darwin was wrong.A stupid thing to say. Every evolutionist today rejects pangenesis. Many, many evolutionists rejected major parts of Darwin's ideas until the neo-Darwinian synthesis in the 1930's.
To share the thematics of the 2012 London Games, I think it’s worth to look at the big picture of the games so far. Your post addresses some very valid points, but today I happened to be reading the National Post and found a pretty interesting article that takes a look at the high and low points of the games so far. I personally found it a pretty interesting read and if you’re up for it, I think it’s really worth a glance: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=NTHCORI48A51&preview=article&linkid=f7363fcc-72e9-4332-8b2a-f577514ffd45&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d
Mostly open oceanI was mentioning Darwins ideas. It is a embarrassment to Darwin fans but its what he said and argued for.He did insist women were inferior in intellect because of biological reasons.he is wrong as all people are made in Gods image and so think like mini-Gods. our intelligence is unrelated to the natural world including our brain.All differences between people have logical sociological origins when dealing with the intellect. No biology or evolution is relevant.It does show jow Darwin did his investigations.Superficial observations and then conclusions without a structured methodology for evidence.The bible thing is true and is saying there is a punishment for eves part in the fall.It has been so ever since.
Creationists were always more sexist and more racist that evolutionists at every era of history. There's no comparison. But creationists all believed that some races devolved more than others.The creationists who founded fundamentalism in the US and tried to ban evolution in the 1920's went on to become supporters of Hitler and Nazi anti-Semitism in the 1930's.It's an embarrassment to creationists that all the founders of their ideas, the concocters of their frauds, were more sexist and more racist than evolutionist and/or the average person of their historical era. It has been so every since.
I was hoping to get a closer look at that jump while I watched the full replay, but no go. This one jumped pretty well most of the time, being a rather simple vertical, but was knocked down occasionally. That's when you got a nearly-instant replay. The camera angle was from the other side and only showed the leafy painted pole ends.There were science related cross country jumps in the eventing competition. One of the jumps was Saturn. I'd like to know what other olympic events show any science at all. Anyone see anything?
Inspired by Robert Byers comments (I get a rather sick feeling admitting that):I think the equestrian events are the only ones in which women and men (and horses of different genders) compete equally. It seems I once heard that there was another sport that did this, but I don't recall which. Shooting?In addition, lots of the riders are well over 40, some in their 60s. How many other sports allow that?
How about Alan T? It's his centenary year, and the Brits are rightly apologetic for driving him to suicide after he single-handedly won them the war. london apartments