"White House seeks to clarify Trump remarks on emergency"

[roguenuke]

Democrats had always supported common sense border security measures, until Trump was elected on promises to increase our border wall protections. Democrats have proven they will stop Trump at any cost from fulfilling his promise to the American people, not because they never supported walls before, but only now because they hate Trump and want to bring him and his promises down for purely partisan reasons. They regained control of the House in 2018 and have proven they will undermine the security of the nation and put our government at risk if that is what it takes to hurt Trump. This tack by democrats since the 2018 election has elevated the issue of tearing down border walls to the level of a serious threat to our national security.

A wall is not in any way a "common sense border measure". And that is the main thing (the only thing I can see) that Dems dont support. There were several bills from the House providing funding for lots of other border security efforts, some that didn't even have their own immigration funding projects them.

 

[roguenuke]

Eminent domain has ruled the American landscape for decades. Why the supposed problem now that Trump is president? What is the land owner going to say? Get the hell off my property, you pu**y-grabbing, yellow-haired, big money, white racist Nazi supporter. I hate Trump. I hate walls. I hate ICE. I hate border security. I love the democrats and socialism, even if socialists have to confiscate lands from owners for the common good.

There are lots of land owners on the border who do not want a wall built, especially if it means taking their land.

 

[gfm7175]

And what the President is trying to do would violate seizure of property (since building a border wall would require the federal government to seize property from private citizens and states.

So then you believe the President could do absolutely anything in the name of "border security"?

Nope... Read the 5th Amendment again...

 

[gfm7175]

Sure, what's wrong with opening their minds to creationism?

Creationism has no scientific foundation. It is not a scientific theory.

Correct! Creationism is a religion. It is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. BUT guess what?? So is the Big Bang Theory... so is the Theory of Abiogenesis... so is the Theory of Evolution... so is believing in an "Old Earth"... so is believing in Global Warming/Climate Change... so is believing in Atheism... YET, all those things are regularly taught in public schools (since they are masqueraded as "science", when they are actually religions).

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Those theories I listed above are NOT falsifiable.

Churches and other religious entities are free to "open the minds" of anyone who wants to listen to them about that particular "theory" of how life began.

Religion is MUCH more than "belief in the existence of god(s)", roguenuke... In fact, that particular religion is called Theism. That's only one of the COUNTLESS religions being practiced at this point in time...

See to it.

 

[roguenuke]

Correct! Creationism is a religion. It is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. BUT guess what?? So is the Big Bang Theory... so is the Theory of Abiogenesis... so is the Theory of Evolution... so is believing in an "Old Earth"... so is believing in Global Warming/Climate Change... so is believing in Atheism... YET, all those things are regularly taught in public schools (since they are masqueraded as "science", when they are actually religions).

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Those theories I listed above are NOT falsifiable.


Religion is MUCH more than "belief in the existence of god(s)", roguenuke... In fact, that particular religion is called Theism. That's only one of the COUNTLESS religions being practiced at this point in time...

See to it.

None of those Theories mentioned are religions. They could have been considered "beliefs", but only when they were first proposed. There is plenty of evidence now to support them. And they are not being taught in schools as absolute and unchallengeable. They are being taught as they are, sound scientific Theories that have scientific evidence to support them but that are still being studied.

 

[gfm7175]

None of those Theories mentioned are religions.

They are ALL religions, for the reasoning I have provided...

They could have been considered "beliefs", but only when they were first proposed.

They ARE beliefs, even now... A belief is the acceptance of an argument as a true. Accept any of those theories as a true, and that means that you believe in those theories.

There is plenty of evidence now to support them.

Yes, all of those theories make use of supporting evidence. But science does NOT make use of supporting evidence... It, rather, makes use of conflicting evidence.

And they are not being taught in schools as absolute and unchallengeable.

But they are being taught as truth (at least to the "best of our current knowledge") and are being taught as science, when they are actually religions.

They are being taught as they are,

No, they aren't.

sound scientific Theories

There is no "scientific theory"; just theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. A theory, IF falsifiable and IF it survives null hypothesis testing, could even become a theory of science. It might even remain a theory of science if it keeps surviving null hypothesis testing... If at any point it fails that testing, then it is no longer a theory of science.

that have scientific evidence

There is no "scientific evidence" either; just evidence. Evidence is any statement which supports an argument. Evidence is, essentially, a predicate.

to support them but that are still being studied.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence; only conflicting evidence.

 

[marke]

A wall is not in any way a "common sense border measure". And that is the main thing (the only thing I can see) that Dems dont support. There were several bills from the House providing funding for lots of other border security efforts, some that didn't even have their own immigration funding projects them.

Democrats supported the erection of walls with billions of dollars before Trump got elected. Now democrats hate Trump, American patriots and American values and traditions, and will destroy the government if necessary to get Trump and republicans out of their progressive commie Bolshevik way.

 

[marke]

There are lots of land owners on the border who do not want a wall built, especially if it means taking their land.

Of course. They do not want walls built on the American border edges of their property no matter how dangerous our nation is without the security of the walls.

 

[j-mac]

Creationism has no scientific foundation. It is not a scientific theory.

Churches and other religious entities are free to "open the minds" of anyone who wants to listen to them about that particular "theory" of how life began.

Good, then you would have no problem with a teacher bringing out the theory in school for discussion purposes then right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Correct! Creationism is a religion. It is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument.

Those "Creationists" who give equal weight to the possibility that the "guiding force" behind evolution is [1] "God", and [2] (the equivalent of) "some high school kid in a galaxy far far away who is competing in their local science fair", and [3] (the equivalent of) "a REALLY creative intergalactic 'Dungeon Master' running a game for the 'guests' at their local version of 'The Home'", probably shouldn't be lumped into the "religion" category.

BUT guess what?? So is the Big Bang Theory... so is the Theory of Abiogenesis... so is the Theory of Evolution... so is believing in an "Old Earth"... so is believing in Global Warming/Climate Change... so is believing in Atheism...

Since NONE of those things postulate the existence of any "God", or even any form of "superhuman controlling power", and since "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" is the sine qua non of a "religion", your conclusion that they are "religions" seems a bit (to say the least) tenuous.

YET, all those things are regularly taught in public schools (since they are masqueraded as "science", when they are actually religions).

At least ONE of the things on your list is NOT "regularly taught in public schools" - do you know which?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Those theories I listed above are NOT falsifiable.

Might I suggest that you actually look up the meaning of "falsifiable theories"? If you think that a theory is "falsifiable" because no contrary example can be fount, then I do wonder how you manage to avoid drifting off the face of the earth because no one has ever been able to "falsify" gravity.

Religion is MUCH more than "belief in the existence of god(s)", roguenuke... In fact, that particular religion is called Theism. That's only one of the COUNTLESS religions being practiced at this point in time...

I prefer to avoid "Humpty-Dumptyism" such as using the word "religion" to describe whatever I feel like using it to describe regardless of whether that thing actually falls within the definition of "religion".

Of course other people don't feel the same way about using whatever term they happen to have handy (regardless of what that term actually means) to describe whatever it is that they feel like describing (but don't know enough about to know what the correct term actually is).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Science does not make use of supporting evidence; only conflicting evidence.

So, since there is NO "conflicting evidence" to "gravity" you are now going to tell me that "gravity" simply doesn't exist.

Oh sure.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Good, then you would have no problem with a teacher bringing out the theory in school for discussion purposes then right?

I don't.

PROVIDED that the teacher will admit that there is an equal possibility that the "guiding force" could be either of (amongst others):

1. (the Christian) "God";
2. the (Shinto) "Gods";
3. the (Hindu) "Gods";
4. the (Norse) "Gods";
5. the (Roman) "Gods";
6. the (Greek) "Gods";
7. the (Native American) "God";
8. the (Polynesian) "Gods";
9. the (__[fill in the blank]__) "God(s)";
10. (the equivalent of) "some geeky high school kid in a galaxy far far away who is competing in their local science fair";
11. (the equivalent of) "a REALLY creative intergalactic 'Dungeon Master' running a game for the 'guests' at their local version of 'The Home'"; and
12. (the equivalent of) "a third rate script writer for an intergalactic soap opera who is running "plot development" trials in a desperate attempt to avoid having their show cancelled.

Are you prepared to admit that the possibilities of all of those "guiding forces" being the "guiding force behind evolution" are equal (due to the fact that there is as much VERIFIABLE evidence to support any one of them as there is to support any other of them?

 

[gfm7175]

Those "Creationists" who give equal weight to the possibility that the "guiding force" behind evolution is

Evolution is also a religion... It cannot be proven in any way, as we don't have a functional time machine to see what happened all those years ago...

[1] "God", and [2] (the equivalent of) "some high school kid in a galaxy far far away who is competing in their local science fair", and [3] (the equivalent of) "a REALLY creative intergalactic 'Dungeon Master' running a game for the 'guests' at their local version of 'The Home'", probably shouldn't be lumped into the "religion" category.

There's no way to prove or disprove the guiding force behind evolution, let alone to prove or disprove evolution...

Since NONE of those things postulate the existence of any "God", or even any form of "superhuman controlling power", and since "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" is the sine qua non of a "religion", your conclusion that they are "religions" seems a bit (to say the least) tenuous.

god(s) are not necessary components of religion. Religion is best defined as an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

At least ONE of the things on your list is NOT "regularly taught in public schools" - do you know which?

Nope, they are all accepted as true.

Might I suggest that you actually look up the meaning of "falsifiable theories"? If you think that a theory is "falsifiable" because no contrary example can be fount, then I do wonder how you manage to avoid drifting off the face of the earth because no one has ever been able to "falsify" gravity.

Gravity is not a theory, TU... It is a fundamental force. A theory is an explanatory argument.

I prefer to avoid "Humpty-Dumptyism" such as using the word "religion" to describe whatever I feel like using it to describe regardless of whether that thing actually falls within the definition of "religion".

I only describe things as religions which make use of an initial circular argument and have other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument...

 

[gfm7175]

So, since there is NO "conflicting evidence" to "gravity" you are now going to tell me that "gravity" simply doesn't exist.

Oh sure.

Gravity is NOT a theory, TU... It is a fundamental force. It exists.

 

[j-mac]

I don't.

PROVIDED that the teacher will admit that there is an equal possibility that the "guiding force" could be either of (amongst others):

1. (the Christian) "God";
2. the (Shinto) "Gods";
3. the (Hindu) "Gods";
4. the (Norse) "Gods";
5. the (Roman) "Gods";
6. the (Greek) "Gods";
7. the (Native American) "God";
8. the (Polynesian) "Gods";
9. the (__[fill in the blank]__) "God(s)";
10. (the equivalent of) "some geeky high school kid in a galaxy far far away who is competing in their local science fair";
11. (the equivalent of) "a REALLY creative intergalactic 'Dungeon Master' running a game for the 'guests' at their local version of 'The Home'"; and
12. (the equivalent of) "a third rate script writer for an intergalactic soap opera who is running "plot development" trials in a desperate attempt to avoid having their show cancelled.

Are you prepared to admit that the possibilities of all of those "guiding forces" being the "guiding force behind evolution" are equal (due to the fact that there is as much VERIFIABLE evidence to support any one of them as there is to support any other of them?

All that for a discussion eh? What are you so scared of?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Evolution is also a religion...

Not according to the definition of "religion" since for something to qualify as a "religion" it requires that that thing involve "worshiping God(s)".

It cannot be proven in any way, ...

If anything that cannot be "proven" is a "religion" then "Gravity" is a religion as no one has been able to isolate a single "gravity".

...as we don't have a functional time machine to see what happened all those years ago...

And, obviously, a belief that the Egyptians built the pyramids is also a "religion" since we don't have a functional time machine to see what happened all those years ago.

In fact, any belief that anything at all happened before you read this post would also qualify as a "religion" since you cannot prove that the universe didn't suddenly come into existence (including all of your memories and all of the so-called "evidence" to the contrary) the minute I started typing it.

There's no way to prove or disprove the guiding force behind evolution, let alone to prove or disprove evolution...

So that means that you would agree that it is just as likely (read as "there is just as much verifiable evidence") that the Universe was created as a High School Science Fair project by some high school kid in a galaxy far far away as it was created by "God".

Right?

god(s) are not necessary components of religion.

Quite right - provided that you want to create a new definition of "religion".

Religion is best defined as an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

When faced with having to choose between

1. a definition coined specifically to "prove" a point; or
2. a definition that is generally accepted by noted scholars (and one that has been generally accepted for well over 1,000 years);

I tend to go with Option 2..

You, of course, much prefer Option 1..

Nope, they are all accepted as true.

Obviously you do not know what "Theory of Abiogenesis" actually means.

BTW, did you know that "moon shots" are calculated using the "Earthcentric Theory" and not the "Heliocentric Theory". Do you know why?

Gravity is not a theory, TU... It is a fundamental force. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Since no one has been able to either "isolate a gravity" or "create a gravity" or "destroy a gravity" then the existence of "gravity" remains a theory.

I only describe things as religions which make use of an initial circular argument and have other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument...

So your description, since it relies on your own initial circular argument and other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument is a "religion"! For SHAME, Sir, for SHAME!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Gravity is NOT a theory, TU... It is a fundamental force. It exists.

Does it?

Prove it by producing a "gravity".

PLEASE NOTE:- If you had said "God is NOT a theory, TU... God is a fundamental force. God exists." my response would have been the same.

 

[pamak]

Evolution is also a religion... It cannot be proven in any way, as we don't have a functional time machine to see what happened all those years ago...

...


Gravity is not a theory, TU... It is a fundamental force. A theory is an explanatory argument.


.

Not so fast Einstein...

If gravity isn't a force, how does it accelerate objects? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

Einstein said there is no such thing as a gravitational force. Mass is not attracting mass over a distance. Instead, it's curving spacetime. If there's no force, then how do you explain acceleration due to gravity? ...

This is perhaps the most common question about general relativity. If gravity isn't a force, how does it accelerate objects?

General relativity says that energy (in the form of mass, light, and whatever other forms it comes in) tells spacetime how to bend, and the bending of spacetime tells that energy how to move. The concept of "gravity" is then that objects are falling along the bending of spacetime. The path that objects follow is called a "geodesic". Let's begin by looking at the bending side of things, and then we'll come back to look at geodesics...



...I hope this has been helpful.

Best,

Dr Jolyon Bloomfield

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

All that for a discussion eh? What are you so scared of?

If YOU will admit that there is an equal possibility that the "guiding force" could be either of (amongst others):

1. (the Christian) "God";
2. the (Shinto) "Gods";
3. the (Hindu) "Gods";
4. the (Norse) "Gods";
5. the (Roman) "Gods";
6. the (Greek) "Gods";
7. the (Native American) "God";
8. the (Polynesian) "Gods";
9. the (__[fill in the blank]__) "God(s)";
10. (the equivalent of) "some geeky high school kid in a galaxy far far away who is competing in their local science fair";
11. (the equivalent of) "a REALLY creative intergalactic 'Dungeon Master' running a game for the 'guests' at their local version of 'The Home'"; and
12. (the equivalent of) "a third rate script writer for an intergalactic soap opera who is running "plot development" trials in a desperate attempt to avoid having their show cancelled;

THEN we can have a discussion.

If you say that that the ONLY POSSIBLE "guiding force" is (in your case I'll take a stab and say) "the Christian God", then there isn't any point in atempting to discuss "Creationist Science" since, at its core, the basic tenet of "Creationist Science" is "In the beginning there was The Word, and The Word was (the Christian) God".

So, are you prepared to admit that the possibilities of all of those "guiding forces" being the "guiding force behind evolution" are equal (due to the fact that there is as much VERIFIABLE evidence to support any one of them as there is to support any other of them or are you going to maintain that THE ONLY POSSIBLE "guiding force" was (the Christian) God?

 

[pamak]

Originally Posted by gfm7175

Correct! Creationism is a religion. It is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. BUT guess what?? So is the Big Bang Theory... so is the Theory of Abiogenesis... so is the Theory of Evolution... so is believing in an "Old Earth"... so is believing in Global Warming/Climate Change... so is believing in Atheism... YET, all those things are regularly taught in public schools (since they are masqueraded as "science", when they are actually religions).

Nope!

Such view shows that you do not know the difference between a theory which is the result of the scientific method and a theory which is NOT the result of the scientific method

Here is a site with a basic lesson about how the scientific method works...

The scientific method (article) |
Khan Academy

Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

If a theory is not testable and cannot make predictions, it is not a scientific theory.
Now can you tell me what are the predictions of the Evangelical, Old Testament based theories and how they have matched our observations?

The problem with those who argue that creationism and other such theories should be taught side by side with scientific theories is that these people do not have even the most basic knowledge about what the scientific method is and how one should examine and study scientific theories.

 

[j-mac]

If YOU will admit that there is an equal possibility that the "guiding force" could be either of (amongst others):

1. (the Christian) "God";
2. the (Shinto) "Gods";
3. the (Hindu) "Gods";
4. the (Norse) "Gods";
5. the (Roman) "Gods";
6. the (Greek) "Gods";
7. the (Native American) "God";
8. the (Polynesian) "Gods";
9. the (__[fill in the blank]__) "God(s)";
10. (the equivalent of) "some geeky high school kid in a galaxy far far away who is competing in their local science fair";
11. (the equivalent of) "a REALLY creative intergalactic 'Dungeon Master' running a game for the 'guests' at their local version of 'The Home'"; and
12. (the equivalent of) "a third rate script writer for an intergalactic soap opera who is running "plot development" trials in a desperate attempt to avoid having their show cancelled;

THEN we can have a discussion.

If you say that that the ONLY POSSIBLE "guiding force" is (in your case I'll take a stab and say) "the Christian God", then there isn't any point in atempting to discuss "Creationist Science" since, at its core, the basic tenet of "Creationist Science" is "In the beginning there was The Word, and The Word was (the Christian) God".

So, are you prepared to admit that the possibilities of all of those "guiding forces" being the "guiding force behind evolution" are equal (due to the fact that there is as much VERIFIABLE evidence to support any one of them as there is to support any other of them or are you going to maintain that THE ONLY POSSIBLE "guiding force" was (the Christian) God?

I don't debate by agreeing to let you set the parameters....You're a very dishonest person.

 

[pamak]

I don't debate by agreeing to let you set the parameters....You're a very dishonest person.

So, how does a scientist set the parameters for a scientific debate?

When creationists START by accepting as an irrefutable fact that the Bible is the word of God and the texts should be interpreted not as an allegory but as an accurate description of natural events as they happened in the past, do not THEY SET the parameters of the debate they want to have? And how do these parameters they set fit with science when the latter does NOT accept some form of an absolute truth and scientists DO accept the possibility that new data and observations may make it necessary to change the accepted scientific parameters?

Also, just out of curiosity...Since the Old Testament is the Book of the Jews, why is it that the Christian Evangelicals are soo obsessed with anti-scientific theories based on their interpretation of a book they did not even write?
Let's accept for a minute that there is God and that this God is the one described in the Old Testament (and both beliefs are veryyyyyyy questionable). Even in this scenario, why is the Evangelical interpretation of the Old Testament superior to the Jewish one which believes in the same God but without showing any disrespect to modern science and modern scientific theories?

 

[Carleen]

"White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday sought to clarify President Trump’s statement that he “didn’t have to” declare a national emergency at the border, but did so to speed up construction of his long-promised wall."

“I could do the wall over a long period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,” Trump conceded."

White House seeks to clarify Trump remarks on emergency | TheHill

Appears Trump blew it in his own proclamation, "didn't have to" and "didn't need to do this" are going to be the central theme of every lawsuit stemming from his "emergency." Tough to defend something as an "emergency" when you preface it with "didn't have to" and "didn't need to do this." Even beer belly Brett is going to struggle rationalizing that one

Trump's advisers much live in fear every time he drifts away from the teleprompter

The irony here is declaring an emergency has now put his speed up process farther away.

 

[j-mac]

So, how does a scientist set the parameters for a scientific debate?

When creationists START by accepting as an irrefutable fact that the Bible is the word of God and the texts should be interpreted not as an allegory but as an accurate description of natural events as they happened in the past, do not THEY SET the parameters of the debate they want to have? And how do these parameters they set fit with science when the latter does NOT accept some form of an absolute truth and scientists DO accept the possibility that new data and observations may make it necessary to change the accepted scientific parameters?

Also, just out of curiosity...Since the Old Testament is the Book of the Jews, why is it that the Christian Evangelicals are soo obsessed with anti-scientific theories based on their interpretation of a book they did not even write?
Let's accept for a minute that there is God and that this God is the one described in the Old Testament (and both beliefs are veryyyyyyy questionable). Even in this scenario, why is the Evangelical interpretation of the Old Testament superior to the Jewish one which believes in the same God but without showing any disrespect to modern science and modern scientific theories?

You're asking the wrong person....And TU is certainly no scientist....lol...You want answers? Find a Pastor....

 

[pamak]

You're asking the wrong person....And TU is certainly no scientist....lol...You want answers? Find a Pastor....

When I want answers to scientific issues, I find and read what the scientists say.
I will seek a pastor only if I want answers for theological issues, and even then I will be aware that I will just get answers based on the pastor's particular interpretation of sacred texts. If I ask a rabbi or an orthodox christian priest, they will tell me that the Old Testament should not be translated literally. If I ask an Evangelical, he will tell me that the Old Testament should be translated literally.

All these show why it makes zero sense to mix in the same scientific classes religious theories, such as creationism, with scientific theories, such as evolution. In the end, at the core of the different theories inspired by the Old Testament is the attempt of some religious fundamentalists, mostly in the American south, to promote their version of interpretations by wrapping them with a veil of pseudoscience to convince more people about the truth of their religious dogma. .