jen82

Log in to follow

Comment history

Frustrating 'Harry Potter' alienates audience

You should get someone to review this movie who understand the plotline. This review has got a lot of the facts wrong. Most people seeing the movie will have read the books, and those I know who haven't still understood it as it's written. This reviewer doesn't even make an attempt, regardless of the review of the movie itself.

July 11, 2007 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

From Greensburg to Greensburg with Love

Good to know!

May 22, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

From Greensburg to Greensburg with Love

Are there any places to drop-off non-monetary donations? Or an address to ship them to? What is needed the most?

Thanks!
jen.

May 21, 2007 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The intelligent design nightmare returns

Belated quick thought:
I think that freedom in science results a lot from the government and how conservative it is, or how it interprets religion, not just religion. In the Middle Ages, is was the Muslim countries that preserved science and continued to make advances (for example).

November 28, 2005 at 11:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open thread

I disagree that the evolutionists are trying to prove that there ISN'T a god. That's absolutely not true and I know many Christians who don't take the bible literally, word for word, and are able to include evolution in their belief system. I had a 9th grade biology teacher who was super catholic who said she'd pull out her bible and show you proof for evolution if you had an issue with it (this was in Georgia). Never asked her, but would be curious to know what she found as proof for evolution in the Bible.

I have quit reading stuff about this topic because it just makes me upset. Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, religion is religion. Science and philosophy are taught in schools, religion is taught at home. Parents should teach their children what they believe and then let their children decide for themselves.

May 6, 2005 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

U.K. Diaries II: Romans, Normans and Whoa-man

oh my god.

that was amazing.

April 4, 2005 at 3:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Schiavo

I'm thinking that it's high time our politicians started to actually read the Bill of Rights before they run for office. This might be beneficial.

The federalist papers might clear up any confusion regarding the religious views of our founding fathers, as well.

jen.

March 21, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My bible sticker for your textbook sticker

i also forgot to add the disclaimer on 2/13:
"i'm writing this comment while intoxicated. points in the following passage may not make any sense."

;)

February 14, 2005 at 6:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

My bible sticker for your textbook sticker

aegrisomnia:
actually, i don't wholly agree with gould, at this moment (i'm still in the process of going through books). however, i agree with the point above.
i was just pointing out the traditional definition of theory, that can easily be misconstrued.
also, the suggested reading was for everyone: arm yourselves.

February 14, 2005 at 6:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

My bible sticker for your textbook sticker

aegrisomnia:
Using your example: We prove gravity exists only by using the theory of gravitation. If the theory of gravitation doesn't exist, neither does gravity (in scientific terms). The definition of theory from a scientific point of view does not imply fact. Rather, a theory is an idea accepted within the scientific community that has not yet been disproved. In other words, according to what I've learned of scientific method and theory since I was a kindergartener, you cannot accept theory for fact. Reason being, there is no possible way to absolutely prove the theory (we can see microevolution occur, but we cannot see macroevolution occur before our eyes, though the fossil record is a good account). A theory stands until it is disproved.
Because the term theory is interpreted as such within the scientific community, creationists have been able to manipulate it very easily to fit their purpose (as they often do).
I pointed out that gravity is a theory, though, as you pointed out, it's as good as fact. All of the evidence points toward gravity holding us to this earth, and not say ...a supernatural force. Until someone proves otherwise, the theory of gravity holds.
I accept gravity as fact and evolution as fact, though as a scientist, I know that since no one witnessed the evolution of life on this planet (or any other sure proof), I cannot officially claim it as fact.
Science wouldn't be science if we didn't constantly question ourselves and each other. This definition of theory stands to allow for this. (This is also why the scientific method exists ...the experiment must be repeatable, so that any other scientist can get the same results--many a fabricator has been exposed this way, and many a revolutionary theory has been accepted.)
Darwin was not, by far, the first person to propose evolution (in fact, Aristotle and some before him had their own ideas on evolution...much different that Darwin's, that had stood for 2000 years or more; Wallace also published a paper at the same time as Darwin, stating similar conclusions that he reached independently). If you think the scientific community took his ideas sitting down, you're mistaken.
Rest assured that his ideas have been explored endlessly and put the the test is various ways. While he was wrong on a very few points, and had, at the time a weak argument (until Mendel's work resurfaced), he was almost entirely correct, and his theory holds.
The exact mechanism, as I mentioned, is still hotly debated.

Suggested reading:
Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker"
Charles Darwin, "The Voyage of the Beagle," and "The Origin of Species"
Lyell's famous account of geography that inspired Darwin

And then try:
Any Stephen Jay Gould
Any papers written as Gould vs. the Darwinists

February 13, 2005 at 2:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous