Rebuttal of Chromosome 2 Fusion Research from the Institute of Creation Research

cs4160

Introduction:

While humans have 23 chromosome pairs, chimpanzees and other great apes have 24. A popular theory for this difference between us and our closest relatives is that, when we broke away from the shared ape ancestor, chromosomes 2a and 2b fused into one. There is a rather convincing amount of evidence for this hypothesis; however, there also exists a fair amount of evidence that brings this hypothesis into question. Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, from the Institute for Creation Research, believes that the evidence against the chromosome fusion is conclusive. He asserts that there is far too much variation between how we would expect our fused chromosome 2 to look, and how it actually looks. Dr. Tomkins believes that this is evidence that humans and other great apes were genetically distinct since creation and did not evolve from a common ancestor. —

Claims:

Dr. Tomkins’ main claim is that the chromosomal fusion…

View original post 1,155 more words

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Demonization of the “Feminine” in the Battle of the Sexes

sometimesmagical

One of the great debates of our era is in regard to differences between men and women. Scientists and psychologists set up countless experiments to see whether men and women have different intelligence levels, strength levels, skills in vocabulary or object rotation, mathematical abilities, brain sizes, relationship drives, sexual desires…you name it, they’ve probably tested to see if there’s a difference between the sexes.

There tend to be two sides to the argument:

  1. Men and women are different
  2. Men and women aren’t different

Both sides find statistical evidence and cogent arguments to support them.

But what neither one realizes is that the argument isn’t really about whether gender differences exist. The real argument is unstated, thus unrecognized and unable to be resolved.

There’s a logical fallacy at play here called an unaccepted enthymeme. Okay, there’s two unaccepted enthymemes.

The first is that gender is binary.

But the second, and I…

View original post 699 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The GOP and NEW WORLD ORDER Conspiracy Theorist have Mislead and miseducated about the History of NAFTA. Correcting the Record, Some Links from the Archives

​I think the Saddest part is Finding Voters on Facebook who Oppose NAFTA Vehemently but Blame Clinton for Signing it and don’t know the full History.  I had to reach into the C-SPAN archive’s at one point when a Right Leaning Female showed up in a debate and SHOW her the Debate Rchard Gephardt (D) Had on it and that  Grichard gephardt (D) had voted AGAINST  NAFTA and Launched most of the arguments against it. Most people in the country didn’t Watch what Was going on. NAFTA Was negotiated and took 3 Presidencies to pass and started back under Ronald Reagan and was largely Drafted and Amended by Republican Majorities in congress.

http://articles.philly.com/1993-11-13/news/25946471_1_gore-and-perot-anti-nafta-nafta-defeat

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19931112&id=NEMyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V-YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5022,3600693

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1957&dat=19931110&id=8XkhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7IkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4398,2563313

Most people following the Coverage Only saw the Gore VS Perot Debate.

And Broder as awful as he was Was right the Media hyped the Wrong debate.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?52172-1/north-american-free-trade-agreement

the GOP did a WONDERFUL job on their SPIN and DISINFORMATION on that one. The GOP has be Rhetorically MASTERFUL at declaring issues like this “Settled” because “Bill Clinton” “voted for it” Therefore “That’s the Final word”

However the conclusion doesn’t follow from the Premise and that is in fact NOT the Final word and was NOT settled

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/137-non-sequitur

You want to know who was REALLY against NAFTA? The republicans were FOR IT . Phil GRAMM was FOR IT

Who was AGAINST it?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-09-22/news/1993265014_1_gephardt-nafta-treaty

Dick gephardt.

That’s what the RECORD says.

and yet Somehow EVERY TIME I get PULLED into debates with “Conspiratorial” Supporters of the GOP  Or republicans this little Bit is  OMITTED, not brought up, or is simply Erased

unfortunately with the “Truth movement” and Ongoing Conspiracy theories I have no choice but to address this kind of bullshit,

It is immaterial and Irrelevant that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. Reagan Started the ball.

Origins of NAFTA: Ronald Reagan and the North American Union

There’s your “Saint”  the GOD of “small government” or whatever you Revere so much Starting a bill you hate

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/11/em371-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/02/06/reagan-free-trade.html

Misinformation still continues about these matters.

Somebody Lied to you, and sometimes the Sin of Omission is worse than lying.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unable to accept that my site’s been getting more traffic than his, AVFM’s Paul Elam takes a swim in denial

we hunted the mammoth

This cat: Not impressed by Paul Elam's obvious bullshit This cat: Not impressed by Paul Elam’s obvious bullshit

The first stage of grief, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross famously postulated, is denial.

So it’s hardly surprising that Paul Elam and his gang of flunkies and fans at A Voice for Men have responded to the news that my site is besting AVFM in traffic by trying to claim that my traffic is somehow … fake.

Elam’s “evidence” for this assertion? He poked around my site for a few minutes and couldn’t find any posts that felt really “viral” to him.

He explained his, er, logic in a post yesterday. (You’ll have to excuse his terrible prose; he’s apparently running out of ways to call me fat.)

View original post 958 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fake James Carville Quotes going around Right wing blogs

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carville.asp

Politically Cowed

Claim:   James Carville said that “the Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows.”

FALSE


Example:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2012]

James Carville, Democrat political consultant extraordinaire — and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, has astonishingly come out and said what all good Republicans have known for decades: Not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they’re easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well. Wow. James Freaking Carville. Of all people. Here’s an excerpt, as quoted by Amazon.com:


“Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Origins:   James Carville is a political consultant and commentator famous for his work as the lead strategist of Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaign in 1992,

his stint as co-host of CNN’s Crossfire program, and his frequent appearances on CNN’s Situation Room news show. Although Carville is best known for employing his skills as a political strategist on behalf of Democratic candidates, he is married to Republican political consultant Mary Matalin.

In October 2012 the above-referenced quotation in which James Carville purportedly likened the Democratic constituency to “a herd of cows” received wide circulation on the Internet. It appears to have originated with an unsourced posting to the ThinkExist.com which has been reproduced on a number of other web sites. However, we found no news article, speech, interview transcript, or printed source documenting this statement as one actually made by James Carville, and a representative from his office confirmed that the purported quote was not something Carville himself ever said:

Apparently the quote was falsely posted by an unknown user to a quotations website called thinkexist.com. We have contacted the website and asked them to take the quote down. James Carville never said these words, and this quote in no way belongs to James Carville.

Feel free to distribute my response, so people know the truth that this quote was 100% falsely attributed to James Carville.

Last updated:   26 November 2012

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carville.asp#4iQhpXRKgPdMflR0.99

Found LIE at THIS wordpress blog: http://ratnation.me/2012/10/16/james-carville-says-80-of-democrats-are-politically-clueless/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Carville Says 80% Of Democrats Are Politically Clueless

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carville.asp
Politically Cowed

Claim: James Carville said that “the Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows.”

FALSE

Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2012]

James Carville, Democrat political consultant extraordinaire — and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, has astonishingly come out and said what all good Republicans have known for decades: Not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they’re easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well. Wow. James Freaking Carville. Of all people. Here’s an excerpt, as quoted by Amazon.com:

“Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Origins: James Carville is a political consultant and commentator famous for his work as the lead strategist of Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaign in 1992,
his stint as co-host of CNN’s Crossfire program, and his frequent appearances on CNN’s Situation Room news show. Although Carville is best known for employing his skills as a political strategist on behalf of Democratic candidates, he is married to Republican political consultant Mary Matalin.

In October 2012 the above-referenced quotation in which James Carville purportedly likened the Democratic constituency to “a herd of cows” received wide circulation on the Internet. It appears to have originated with an unsourced posting to the ThinkExist.com which has been reproduced on a number of other web sites. However, we found no news article, speech, interview transcript, or printed source documenting this statement as one actually made by James Carville, and a representative from his office confirmed that the purported quote was not something Carville himself ever said:
Apparently the quote was falsely posted by an unknown user to a quotations website called thinkexist.com. We have contacted the website and asked them to take the quote down. James Carville never said these words, and this quote in no way belongs to James Carville.

Feel free to distribute my response, so people know the truth that this quote was 100% falsely attributed to James Carville.
Last updated: 26 November 2012

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carville.asp#P83mdZWIHELrgZFu.99

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I think what frustrates me is the defeatism on the left about states beause of the history

I guess what i’m getting at is that i’m not sure anti-statist philosophy or at least the way many leftist act like if you support workers cooperatives you CANNOT support at the same political parties like the democrats. I don’t know why so many anarchist types which btw I count myself as a sympathizer with not against consider the goals of supporting the left flank  that wants to do things like expand social security and something about climate change with the government is necessarily contradictory with the idea of supporting workers cooperatives and the efforts of those who are tired of waiting around for the state to do as it needs to. in other words I hardly deny the horrors of the history of the state but I think that it’s a self defeating goal to conclude it’s futile to try to reform it

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Edward Cullen is NOT protective of Bella Swan-he’s INSECURE. Protection defense dismanteld.

Edward cullen is -not- protective. His real intention has -nothing- to do with Protecting Bella. He might -APPEAL- to being protective of her but his real fear is not that she will get hurt but that she will leave him and find someone better. 

His statements about how he’s a monster are not him urging her or spurring her to find someone better it’s him appealing to her mothering instinct to tell her he’s “lost without her”

He’s desperate and scared, not protective.

you can see it all over the passages, communicated as plain as day.

he has to intimidate her into being afraid of leaving him.

http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/books-to-read/articles/13699/title/why-edward-cullen-spouse-abuser-why-should-care


Books to ReadOpinion Article

Why Edward Cullen Is A Spouse Abuser (And Why You Should Care!)

Opinion by  Cinders posted over a year ago

fan of it?

72 fans
save

Statement of Intent: If you read to the end, you’ll notice that I do not advocate against reading Twilight, just putting it into context for young readers. This was originally written for a Facebook audience of friends until I decided to post it here as well. It was not intended to offend Twilight fans or readers, but to simply give a little perspective on why I believe Edward Cullen is a poor character to respect/admire. Should there be enough popular demand, I’m willing to write a similar article about Bella Swan.

Personality Traits in Abusive Relationships [SourceSecondary Source]

Note: The ones in bold are ones that are displayed by Edward Cullen in the book or film. Thanks to Jody for the research.

1) Uncontrolled temper. “Sometimes I Have a problem with my temper, Bella.” (Twilight, Edward, page 164).
2) Extreme Jealousy.

“I mean, you know better than to be jealous, right?”
He raised one eyebrow. “Do I?”
“Be serious.”
“Easily – there’s nothing remotely humorous about this.”
I frowned suspiciously. “Or… is this something else altogether? Some vampires-and-werewolves-are-always-enemies nonsense? Is this just a testosterone-fueled –”
His eyes blazed. “This is only about you. All I care is that you’re safe.” (Eclipse, page 143, after Bella spent the day with Jacob.)

3) Intense fear of abandonment. (Note that though this is not one of Edward’s character traits, it is a telling trait of Bella, who one could argue in a seprate note is emotionally manipulative, but we’re not focusing on Bella here.)
4) A background involving physical, emotional or sexual abuse, abandonment, ACOA issues.
5) Unrealistic expectations of a relationship. (To “fix” them or solve their problems.)
6) Low Self-Esteem.

“I infuriate myself,” he said gently. “The way I can’t seem to keep from putting you in danger. My very existence puts you at risk. Sometimes I truly hate myself. I should be stronger, I should be able to –”
I put my hand over his mouth. “Don’t.” (Twilight, page 336)

7) Rush in to relationships. “About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was part of him — and I didn’t know how potent that part might be — that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.” (Twilight, page 195. The next day, they become a couple. If teenage Bella is confessing “unconditional and irrevocable love” for a vampire she’s known three months, who she KNOWS wants to eat her, she’s definitely enabling.)
9) Exhibit controlling behavior.

We were near the parking lot now. I veered left, toward my truck. Something caught my jacket, yanking me back.
“Where do you think you’re going?” he asked, outraged. He was gripping a fistful of my jacket in one hand.
I was confused. “I’m going home.”
“Didn’t you hear me promise to take you safely home? Do you think I’m going to let you drive in your condition? His voice was still indignant.
“What condition? And what about my truck?” I complained.
“I’ll have Alice drop it off after school.” He was towing me toward his car now, pulling me by my jacket. It was all I could do to keep from falling backward. He’d probably just drag me along anyway if I did.
“Let go!” I insisted. He ignored me. I staggered along sideways across the wet sidewalk until we reached the Volvo. Then he finally freed me – I stumbled against the passenger door.
“You are so pushy!” I grumbled. (Twilight, pages 103-4).

10) Have unrealistic expectations or demands.
11) Use isolation to keep you centered on them.
12) Believe in male supremacy and the stereotyped masculine role in the family. (It should be noted here that this is clearly where Stephanie Meyer’s Mormon background permeates best. She reinforces stereotypical gender roles in which the stronger man must protect and support the dependant woman. Edward practically oozes this stereotype.)
13) Use of force during sex.

His eyes tightened. “How badly are you hurt, Bella? The truth – don’t try to downplay it.”

“Look at yourself, Bella. Then tell me I’m not a monster.”
Wounded, shocked, I followed his instruction unthinkingly and then gasped.
What had happened to me? I couldn’t make sense of the fluffy white snow that clung to my skin. I shook my head, and a cascade of white drifted out of my hair.
I pinched one soft white bit between my fingers. It was a piece of down.
“Why am I covered in feathers?” I asked, confused.
He exhaled impatiently. “I bit a pillow. Or two. That’s not what I’m talking about.”

Under the dusting of feathers, large purple bruises were beginning to blossom across the pale skin of my arm. My eyes followed the trail they made up to my shoulder and then down across my ribs. I uplled my hand free to poke at the discoloration of my left forearm, watching it fade where I touched it and then reappear. It throbbed a little. (Breaking Dawn, 87-89.)

14) Threats of Violence

He lowered the automatic window and leaned toward me across the seat. “Get in, Bella.”
I didn’t answer. I was mentally calculating my chances of reaching the truck before he could catch me. I had to admit, they weren’t good.
“I’ll just drag you back,” he threatened, guessing my plan. (Twilight, page 104).

15) Have poor communication skills. (At least, this was the impression I got from the movie.)
16) Exhibit cruelty to animals or children. (Note: I was tempted to bold this, due to the fact that Edward is a “vegetarian”– someone needs to tell that boy that real vegetarians don’t eat meat or blood of any kind, hence the “vege” root of the word. But since he has no qualms about draining animals of their blood, I want to say it counts as animal cruelty. But I feel it would take away from the seriousness of all my other arguments).

If you have never read Twilight, and/or have listened to me rant about why Edward and Bella’s relationship is a very bad example of “true love” for young girls, I hope this sheds a little light onto the situation, or at least on why I hold that opinion. The funny thing is, a character like this in teen literature wouldn’t bother me so much, if the teen literature wasn’t so popular. The fact that so many girls are idolizing Edward Cullen, and wishing that they were the simpering Bella Swan, disturbs me enough to compile this list.

I am against book banning of any kind. Indeed, I’ll go so far as to say that I’m glad that kids are reading, even if they are reading Twilight. But I urge parents, teachers, and anyone with common sense, to explain to their kids that Edward is not the type of man you want to get involved with, and why.

Following this conversation, and when the kids are finished reading Twilight, show your young girls some good ol’ Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or encourage them to read books like Levine’s “Ella Enchanted,” Burnett’s “The Secret Garden” or “A Little Princess,” or even Fitzhugh’s “Harriet the Spy,” to show them real role models.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An argument against Douglas amy ‘m going go poke holess in

 the problem is that this argument in response to Douglas makes quiet a few errors when it presumes the state is the cause of capitalism rather than merely a symptom of it. It makes a categorical error when it presumes that sense the state “tends to” cooperate with capitalist that it’s only role is to do so. Also appealing to the “history” is disingenuous n nature. It’s not particularly relevant. conflating the state with Capitalism is a categorical fallacy. Libertarian types always love to argue as though the capitalist companies are the same thing as their State corporate charters but I adamantly beg to differ that corporations are defined by their legal entity but rather the entity that legal document represents. If Walmart’s LLC were burnt to the crisp and it became “Walmart’ instead it would be every bit as much a problem in fact worse then it is now. A corporation is -NOT- it’s legal existence but it’s concrete physical form and existence in the empirical and real material universe. The problems with the state are symptoms of Capitalism-Not Inherent to statehood. It’s again arguing backwards causation.  appeals to the legal structure as to define what a corporation is factually incorrect.

  a corporation TRANSCENDS it’s Corporate charter.  the state is not to blame for the existence of capitalism
it’s merely effected by capitalism. Huge difference.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The CW itself is wrong.That is my problem

The CW itself is wrong.

That is my problem in so many ways.

 

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment