Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Oh boy... my kids are going to a private school for their middle school years because the middle school here is very bad. The reason they will be going to public school next year is the public high school is actually rather good.
Now having said that, how do I feel about the homosexual agenda in school? Hate it. Next question.
Am I aware that government controlled schools are one of the 10 planks of communism? Um... yes I am. Does that mean that my particular public school is promoting communism? Um... no I am afraid it doesn't. How do I know this? Because my nephew (I am his guardian) is in 11th grade at the high school and we talk alot about what the teachers' agenda are. I know for a fact that his "humanities" teacher is a certifiable leftist but oddly enough has been rather good about promoting debate in school both for and against various left and right idealogies.
A funny thing I might mention is that his guidance councelor is a certifiable right winger. He has pics of Reagan, Bush Sr and Jr. all over his office. You want to talk about a double take when I first met him. I was surprised to see that in a public high school.
Shocked placemark
this is great
Is one needed?
So you disagree with the scientific finding that we share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees?
"Better"? I don't know... How do you define "better"? We certainly appear to be more intelligent, with larger brains, a more highly developed language skill, etc. Certainly different.
I don't know the % difference between humans and pigs, but what does that have to do with anything? I suspect it is fairly high (+95%?), since we are both mammals, and share the common mammalian ancestry back a few million years.
If it suggests a common creator, then it suggests a lazy one, or one without much imagination. Or perhaps it suggests a creator who deliberately deceives - is that any better?
So what? The fact that there are consequences doesn't invalidate the theory or supporting evidence.
No blood-spatter nor blunt objects or shell casings though; just footprints; none of them human.
No it isn't, the opposite is true. DNA reacts only with itself, and does not easily breakdown, which is why it is suitable for carrying genetic code.
The Roman Empire survived many centuries with an 8-day week and a horrible calender system. So to the Incas.
The Mayans did well with two weeks of 13 or 20 days, seeming used simultaneously.
Given the diversity of opinions, the former may be the best bet.
Given the diversity of opinions, the former may be the best bet.
I remember (before his Nobel Prize), when Hayek was considered a conservative economist. Now he's just a free-enterprise economist.
Rocks are, typically, porous, but not so much clays and shales are only slightly so. Putrescine is found in all cells and especially bacteria. The presence of putrescine does not mean that the sample is either old or young. As an amine it would have a long half life under anaerobic conditions and may be therefore quite old (yes that could be millions of years), but it could also be quite young if there is significant ground water and something for bacteria to chew on, because the porosity of rocks, especially sandstones and limestones allows not only liquid organics to penetrate but also bacteria. It may only be a week old. Indeed if the material is "floating" on water, like most pertoleum deposits, then it could have been formed anywhere and at any time and just migrated to its present position, the same as liquid hydrocarbons. The presence of coal nearby is also a possible source of biogenic putrescine.
So..... I guess your are all right.
I for one would like to see a park dedicated to cloned species of such animals.
Dr. Schweitzer says, ‘no’.
I personally believe we could after about 20 years of research. In the end I don’t believe it would be a ‘clone’ it would be more of a hybrid of something else.
lol It's always the most fun when everyone can be right.
This is really meant for all you proponents of TOE:
I can agree with micro-evolution. But macro-evolution is such a whopper. I asked earlier about language evolution.
Does it not strike any of you as a little odd that mankind is the only species with several complex languages while no
other species shows anything close?
Maybe you noticed several other areas unique to mankind?
art, literature, music, spirituality, abstract thought,
increased knowledge and abilities, (the list is longer than I care to define...)
Why are these also completely lacking in the animal kingdom?
But it also means that you are all probably wrong - it's just not nice to say that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.