published Saturday, February 9th, 2013

Myriad of gun laws should be enough and other letters to the editors

Myriad of gun laws should be enough

So, now, a bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to increase penalties for straw purchases of firearms, eh?

I know where they should start to get some real practice about enforcing existing American firearms laws.

Let's refer them to Eric Holder, the attorney general, whose mandated straw purchases of real assault rifles caused the deaths of two border patrol agents and who knows how many Mexican civilians.

Federal Form 4473 -- mandatory for every firearm purchase through a federally licensed dealer -- contains 14 questions, one of which asks if the gun under pending sale is being bought for the ownership and use of the purchaser or for someone not legally allowed to own it.

All of these proposals, committees, bills, laws, are all smoke and mirrors and a dog-and-pony show. There are more than 30,000 anti-Second Amendment laws in force in the 50 States -- an average of 600 per state -- more than enough laws to prevent gun crime.

This past December saw the second Christmas which the Terry and Zapata families spent without their men. Who even remembers -- or cares?

With this administration and congress, I feel as though I'm living in "The Twilight Zone."

GEORGE MITCHELL, Blairsville, Ga.


Smith an advocate for city's District 3

After watching Pam Ladd for the last four years, I look forward to voting for Ken Smith. I encourage others to do the same come election day. I believe District 3 needs a new voice on the City Council -- someone who will strongly advocate for the best interests of taxpayers, local neighborhoods and small businesses and truly represent the views and values of the community.

During her tenure, Pam has ignored the wishes of the community on a variety of issues, including her vote to increase property taxes and park police cars that basically reduce the police presence on our streets. It's time to elect someone who will challenge the status quo at City Hall versus serving as a rubber stamp for the mayor. Our community needs a representative who will fight to adequately fund essential city services before funding non-essential projects -- and without raising taxes.

Ken is a businessman and community leader who truly understands what representation means to our community. His background and experience, along with his endorsement from local firefighters and police officers, are why I'm supporting Ken Smith for District 3 City Council. I hope you will, too.

PAUL BARNETT


Mitchell leadership needed in District 2

I strongly support Jerry Mitchell for City Council, District 2. I have known Jerry for several years, and I am confident he will represent us well.

I first met Jerry years ago when he served as the head of Chattanooga Parks and Recreation. He showed effective leadership in this role and ended up serving under both Mayors Jon Kinsey and Bob Corker. But Jerry's experience isn't limited to public service. He spent years in the business world, giving him an important balance of both public and private sector expertise.

Not only does Jerry have the experience for this position, such as common sense, responsible budgeting and strong leadership, he also has the personality for this position. Jerry has great charisma, loves his hometown, is easy to talk to and is a good listener.

From knowing him personally and hearing his vision for the future, I can tell you Jerry is prepared to be our next Council member -- and he will do an excellent job.

HERB COHN


Sin is behind violence, not guns

When God said "Thou shalt not kill" He wasn't talking to guns, He was talking to us, man, human beings. Guns cannot kill without man's finger pulling the trigger. If God's word was a required class in school and parents would teach their children Godly values, we wouldn't have so much violence. Guns are not the problem. Sin is!!!

EVA MILLIGAN, Signal Mountain


Woodall letter made good points

I am writing in response to a letter (Feb. 5) by Jerome Woodall.

He expressed my thoughts so successfully that I will not try to elaborate but to say thanks for a thoughtful letter. Yes, if the Republicans continue on their trajectory, I fully think that Barack Obama will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. I would like to give thanks also to the Tea Party and the special interest groups who have Washington awash with money.

FRANCIS A. GREEN, Chickamauga, Ga.


Fracking is not cause for alarm

The Free Press editorial (Feb. 3) about fracking was excellent -- couldn't have been better.

Groundwater contamination was a problem long before environmentalists had fracking to blame. My recollection back to the 1930s and 1940s brings to mind a number of reasons believed to be the cause, depending on what was popular at the time. Some examples: (1) excessive use of manure as farm fertilizer; (2) dairy and pig farm use of waste collection ponds; (3) drilling horizontal and vertical mine shafts to recover top and bottom coal; (4) strip mining and (5) a combination of any or all of these.

Fracking has been used the past 50 or 60 years to shock shallow wells with declining production to release any additional residual gas before they go dry. If ground water contamination were going to occur, it would take place in shallow wells because they are much closer to aquifers.

Fracking used to release gas in the Marcellus shale layer, is too far below the aquifers to have any effect on ground water or any other environmentally sensitive issue. If there is any evidence otherwise, it should be made known so that it can be investigated for the public's edification.

THEODORE K. ELBELL, Madisonville, Tenn.


Homosexuality not normal or natural

I am saddened by the editors of the Free Press in their advocacy for homosexuals in the Boy Scouts. They have fallen for the "big lie." Homosexuality is neither normal nor natural. Only a few percent practice this lifestyle, so it is not normal. Looking at the mammalian kingdom, it is not evident in any species so it is not natural. We have forgotten the lessons learned on the farm. Congress or the Supreme Court may make it legal but it will never be right.

The collapse of the great civilizations has been preceded by the disintegration of the family and the rise of homosexuality. America is approaching zero population growth, Russia is already there. If a few more percent are deceived into this lifestyle, we will start declining population. The purpose of every species is to survive. Homosexuality is contrary to survival of our species. None of the major religions advocate this lifestyle. Christians have been slandered by saying they hate homosexuals. That is completely false. If they did, they would simply shut up and leave the homosexuals to their eternal fate. Homosexuals must be treated with love and compassion and every opportunity to leave this unnatural lifestyle.

DAVID FORSTEN, Dayton, Tenn.

56
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
anniebelle said...

There are over 1,500 species of animals that are homosexual. Only human animals are homophobic. Now who's unnatural, David Forsten? Do you think (sic) all these animals were "deceived" into being homosexual?

February 9, 2013 at 5:32 a.m.
LibDem said...

DAVID FORSTEN, Offering your children and/or grandchildren up to procreate with homosexuals to save the species probably sounded like a good idea when you discussed it at church; but I hope you'll talk it over with them before pursuing this.

February 9, 2013 at 5:14 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

No, No, There certainly, unequivocally are Not 1,500 species of animals that are homosexual! A behavior among most every animal species is to explore/experiment, ALTHOUGH 'NOT' TO BE HOMOSEXUAL. Please study more diligently regarding this subject before making such a public claim. Please understand, i certainly are not calling You a lier. Many other misinformed individuals have made the same erroneous claim. kwo

February 9, 2013 at 6:42 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

When Jesus Christ created the animal kingdom He indeed did (in my belief) include provisions for survival of the fittest. Even the most anti-Christian Evolutionist would cringe at the thought of destroying Evolutionary Theory. Belief in creation design of homosexual animals would refute/obliterate Evolutionary Theory. To destroy Evolutionary Theory thought would be to destroy, say, the Father of Racism, Charles Darwin. Of course, Adolph Hitler would have loved such an ill-conceived thought that the animal kingdom was purposely designed to refute evolutionary theory. (This was one of the most powerful mind-tools for Hitler to justify murder).

February 9, 2013 at 7:08 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Correction of grammar/word usage

No, No, There certainly, unequivocally are Not 1,500 species of animals that are homosexual! A behavior among most every animal species is to explore/experiment, ALTHOUGH 'NOT' TO BE HOMOSEXUAL. Please study more diligently regarding this subject before making such a public claim. Please understand, I'm certainly not calling You a lier. Many other misinformed individuals have made the same erroneous claim.

I have available a great number of reasons that there there are not 1500 animal species that are homosexual. It seems that one reason to begin with is acceptable. (This reason includes three concepts). kwo

1...Lack of habitat due to human encroachment, lack of mates, etc. Animals have instincts for preservation of their species and they will attempt to mate 'even with other species' IF their own is unavailable. (Take a look at jails/prisons. These men and women definitely would not engage in perverted sexual behavior as a way of life, if not incarcerated).

Quest For Pleasure Is Powerful<<<

Ken ORR

February 9, 2013 at 7:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"No, No, There certainly, unequivocally are Not 1,500 species of animals that are homosexual!"

Wrong again, dumbass.

"Please study more diligently regarding this subject before making such a public claim."

You need to do a lot of studying. You're very ignorant.

"Please understand, i certainly are not calling You a lier."

You're the liar.

"Many other misinformed individuals have made the same erroneous claim."

The claim is based on scientific observation. You are the one that is misinformed. You are the one that has made an erroneous claim.

February 9, 2013 at 8:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"When Jesus Christ created the animal kingdom He indeed did (in my belief) include provisions for survival of the fittest."

That statement goes against everything you've said about evolution in the past.

"To destroy Evolutionary Theory thought would be to destroy, say, the Father of Racism, Charles Darwin."

Your statements about Darwin are false and libelous.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

"Of course, Adolph Hitler would have loved such an ill-conceived thought that the animal kingdom was purposely designed to refute evolutionary theory."

Nothing in the animal kingdom refutes evolutionary theory.

February 9, 2013 at 8:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"I have available a great number of reasons that there there are not 1500 animal species that are homosexual."

You'd be wrong.

"Lack of habitat due to human encroachment, lack of mates, etc. Animals have instincts for preservation of their species and they will attempt to mate 'even with other species' IF their own is unavailable."

So you're admitting that animals can show homosexual behavior.

Animals that do not have a lack of mates or habitat display homosexual behavior.

Keep spouting your ignorance. I'll be here to point it out.

February 9, 2013 at 8:41 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy123, I would shine the light on some extremely glaring examples of misunderstanding You have demonstrated on volumes of information I have provided You and others. You are Young and impressionable, and I do care about Your developing mind. So, having said that I will only note that You don't seem to be following my facts as presented. No insult intended. kwo

Ecclesiastes 12... "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain...Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."<<<

February 9, 2013 at 10:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"Easy123, I would shine the light on some extremely glaring examples of misunderstanding You have demonstrated on volumes of information I have provided You and others."

You have done no such thing. No one is misunderstanding you. You are simply wrong. Nothing you say is factual and you are scientifically illiterate. You're a proven liar and you espouse falsehoods and misinformation.

"You are Young and impressionable, and I do care about Your developing mind."

You are old and ignorant. Your mind is already compromised.

You don't even know how old I am yet you continue to bring up my perceived "youth" as if it means something. It doesn't. You are a glaring example of how old people can still be completely and utterly ignorant.

"So, having said that I will only note that You don't seem to be following my facts as presented."

You haven't presented any facts whatsoever.

"No insult intended."

All the insult intended.

February 9, 2013 at 10:40 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy123,

'This is only FYI. Research more on this subject, if You like'. kwo

Children With Oppositional Defiant Disorder

All children are oppositional from time to time, particularly when tired, hungry, stressed or upset. They may argue, talk back, disobey, and defy parents, teachers, and other adults. Oppositional behavior is often a normal part of development for two to three year olds and early adolescents. However, openly uncooperative and hostile behavior becomes a serious concern when it is so frequent and consistent that it stands out when compared with other children of the same age and developmental level and when it affects the child’s social, family and academic life.

In children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) who are older, there is an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that seriously interferes with the youngster's day to day functioning. Symptoms of ODD may include:

Frequent temper tantrums... Excessive arguing with adults... Often questioning rules... Active defiance and refusal to comply with adult requests and rules... Deliberate attempts to annoy or upset people... Blaming others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior... Often being touchy or easily annoyed by others... Frequent anger and resentment... Mean and hateful talking when upset... Spiteful attitude and revenge seeking...

The symptoms are usually seen in multiple settings. Biological, psychological and social factors may have a role. Teenagers are often identified with ODD even by their peers.

A child presenting with ODD symptoms should have a comprehensive evaluation.

'The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry' (AACAP)

Ken ORR

February 10, 2013 at 3:21 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Ken Orr,

I'm not a child, moron. The fact that you think I am and that you believe you're some type of authority figure over me only lends more to my claim of your delusion.

But this is only for your information. Research more if you like:

Schizotypal personality disorder

The American Psychiatric Association defined Schizotypal Personality Disorder as:

A pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts as indicated by 5 or more:

Ideas of reference

Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g. superstition, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, "sixth sense", or bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)

Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions

Odd thinking and speech (e.g. vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, or stereotyped speaking)

Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation


Delusional disorder

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.

That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.

There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.

An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.

The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.


Ignorant - adjective ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\

1. lacking knowledge or awareness in general;

2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

3. uninformed; unaware.

4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training:

February 10, 2013 at 4:15 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy, I really did like this line You wrote: "But this is only for your information. Research more if you like:" This is some of the amazing, genius-like, material that daytonsdar... presents. He has been more valuable for me than any 'mood elevating chemical' ever developed. This what You have written is truly 'rich'. Thanks Easy. I do believe Psychiatrists could give a diagnoses to every living entity who qualifies as a human.

kwo

February 10, 2013 at 1:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

You're literally too stupid to insult.

February 10, 2013 at 4:26 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy123, You just gave me a good hearty laugh once again. I think that's how i keep a 'near six-pack' stomach. Your comments truly rage! I think of a comedian i used to watch, he called most everybody a 'hockey-puck'. I can't remember his name, but, he would insult everybody with whom he came into contact. He would break out in profuse sweating. Anyway, when I compare all of this debate with the supreme concern, my eternal soul, then the rest is laughable. It pales into oblivion in comparison to the truly weighty matters of Eternal Heaven and Hell presented by Jesus Christ. It's good to know that You, Easy, do also care about current events.

Oh, when i wrote about the women who would not give up the privilege of 'shakin' it at da'Club', I was referring to the true reason they murdered their own children. The hypocritical Slaughter House Abortionists then take the Human in process/development DNA from the children they murder and use-it/sell-it for stem cell purposes. Then they can make another car payment. Quack! Quack! Quack!

Ken ORR

February 10, 2013 at 8:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"You just gave me a good hearty laugh once again. I think that's how i keep a 'near six-pack' stomach."

LMFAO! Don't flatter yourself! Your psychosis is reaching all-time highs.

"Your comments truly rage!"

They actually don't rage at all. They just really hit a nerve with you and you cannot stand it. That's why you wax indignant and then act like my comments are comical to you. You must deflect because you know how accurate my characterization of you actually is.

"I can't remember his name, but, he would insult everybody with whom he came into contact. He would break out in profuse sweating."

The insults I impart to you are warranted and based on facts. And the only one here sweating profusely is you.

"I was referring to the true reason they murdered their own children."

That isn't the true reason whatsoever. That is just the reason people like you conjure up in order to demonize and condemn women that makes these choices for themselves.

"The hypocritical Slaughter House Abortionists then take the Human in process/development DNA from the children they murder and use-it/sell-it for stem cell purposes."

There is nothing hypocritical about abortion or stem cell research. Fetuses are not children no matter how many times you say it. You're deluded for believing so. But you've been deluded all along so that's nothing new.

"Then they can make another car payment. Quack! Quack! Quack!"

That's not how it works. LMFAO! Refer to my post about your ignorance.

February 10, 2013 at 9:20 p.m.
goatman said...

He thinks your young because you make juvenile arguments...here let me show you...fetuses are children no matter how many times you say they aren't...see how that works..and you use wikipedia to source...almost as bad as snopes..

February 11, 2013 at 5:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"He thinks your young because you make juvenile arguments"

You can't begin to give any evidence to prove that.

"fetuses are children no matter how many times you say they aren't"

Fetuses are not children no matter how much you believe they are. Here, let me show you:

Child: A person between birth and puberty.

Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth

Your arguments aren't juvenile, they're ignorant.

"see how that works"

Not at all considering your entire premise is false.

"and you use wikipedia to source...almost as bad as snopes.."

LMFAO! You use no sources. Wanna try again?

February 11, 2013 at 5:36 p.m.
goatman said...

explain to me oh great one the difference between an unborn and a newborn besides the obvious..neither can take care of themselves would you be in favor of killing a one year old? how bout five??where's the line for you easy or do you even have a clue

February 11, 2013 at 5:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"explain to me oh great one the difference between an unborn and a newborn besides the obvious"

The embryo does have a heart beat until about 7 weeks. Most fetuses cannot live outside the wound prior to about 23-24 weeks. Newborn babies have heartbeats and can live outside the wound. You could always Google it but you're way too dense to do that.

"neither can take care of themselves"

LMFAO! Neither can shave either. Seriously, is that all you have?

"would you be in favor of killing a one year old? how bout five??"

No. No.

"where's the line for you easy or do you even have a clue"

The only person that doesn't have a clue here is you. But you wouldn't know that because you really have no clue. That's why you're asking me about the difference between unborn and newborn babies or if I would be in favor of killing a one or five year old. You truly haven't a clue about anything you're talking about. You don't even know the difference between a fetus and a child.

My line is whatever the age of viability is. Probably about 23-24 weeks gestation.

February 11, 2013 at 5:53 p.m.
goatman said...

my line is one day past what your age is.."newborn babies have heartbeats"..wow theres a shocker..."and can live outside the wound"?? do you mean womb professor??

and can either live without being cared for in some way by a second party? if a doctor delivers a premature baby and leaves it laying on the table without care is that murder or just the easy123 method of child care?? maybe you should google up you a dictionary, moron

February 11, 2013 at 6:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"my line is one day past what your age is"

Doubt it. You just don't have a clue now, do you?

"newborn babies have heartbeats"..wow theres a shocker.."

You're the one that asked about the difference between the two, moron.

"and can live outside the wound"?? do you mean womb professor??"

Autocorrected. Don't make me start being a grammar/spelling Nazi.

"and can either live without being cared for in some way by a second party?"

Fetuses born at 24 weeks only have a 50% chance of living WITH care.

"if a doctor delivers a premature baby and leaves it laying on the table without care is that murder or just the easy123 method of child care??"

That's against the law already. Once the fetus is delivered, it should get all the medical care needed.

"maybe you should google up you a dictionary, moron"

LMFAO! Maybe you should Google up you a grammar text book and while yer at it, a biology text book too, dumbass. Yer the one that thought a fetus wuz a child. Getchuself that dicshonary while yer at it.

February 11, 2013 at 6:12 p.m.
goatman said...

heres your profile please tell me if i'm wrong

very small in stature(overcompensating for something) no children(would partially explain view on abortion) born into an upper middle class family, probably in the city favorite color is black(bold print no less) does not believe in God how am i doing so far?? come on be honest

February 11, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.
goatman said...

p.s. ooh ooh please do mine, come on it will be fun

February 11, 2013 at 6:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"heres your profile please tell me if i'm wrong"

Get ready to be told.

"very small in stature(overcompensating for something)"

Very wrong.

"no children(would partially explain view on abortion)"

Wrong. And that wouldn't "partially" explain anything. Many people with children share my views.

"born into an upper middle class family"

LMFAO! VERY wrong.

"probably in the city"

Very wrong.

"favorite color is black(bold print no less)"

Wrong again.

"does not believe in God"

A nutless monkey could gather that from this thread alone.

"how am i doing so far??"

1 for 6. But anyone that posts here knows or could easily come to your last conclusion so it's not like you actually guessed anything correctly.

"come on be honest"

Would you like to try again? It's common for your ilk for resort to these tactics. You'd rather create this elaborate strawman than actually debate or discuss anything because you know you're intellectually inept.

"p.s. ooh ooh please do mine, come on it will be fun"

I have no desire to play your little game. Get your rocks off elsewhere.

February 11, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
goatman said...

i sir do not have an ilk. i am my own ilk thank you very much...and you have my address, the offer still stands on a face to face.. by the way why don't you believe in God?

February 11, 2013 at 6:42 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

by the way why don't you believe in God?

Why do you believe in god?

February 11, 2013 at 6:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"i sir do not have an ilk. i am my own ilk thank you very much"

You do have an ilk. They post here constantly.

"and you have my address, the offer still stands on a face to face"

The offer was for target practice. I'll pass.

"by the way why don't you believe in God?"

Because I've investigated my own, former religion and many other religions as well as science, logic, philosophy and literature and I've come to the conclusion that religion is man-made. The cosmos works just fine without the assumption of a deity.

February 11, 2013 at 6:49 p.m.
goatman said...

i've read a lot too the last 12 or so years about new world order this and one world government that...God or no God...religion may very well be the yoke around the so called christians neck.

what was your former religion?

February 11, 2013 at 7:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Christianity

February 11, 2013 at 7:12 p.m.
goatman said...

lkeithlu, ask me yesterday for its different today...maybe its because i was introduced to the word before i heard about evolution..who the hell knows...all i know is if you apply science and logic to the argument you can come down equally on both sides and then it comes down to you...why is it still referred to as the theory of evolution and not the laws of evolution??

idk. maybe you do and can tell the rest of us..maybe being a bit of a gambler i am just betting on a heavenly afterlife because the alternative is even harder to wrap my mind around...unlike some on here i ain't afraid to say i don't know ..but i believe

February 11, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.
goatman said...

easy, what flavor of Christianity??

February 11, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

why is it still referred to as the theory of evolution and not the laws of evolution

Because a theory in science is not the same thing as a law. A theory does not "become" a law.

February 11, 2013 at 7:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Catholic on my father's side and Baptist on my mothers. I considered myself a Baptist but I've been to many a mass in my day.

February 11, 2013 at 7:26 p.m.
goatman said...

i beg to differ, respectfully, thats the normal progression. we come up with something new, we call it the theory of whatever..we turn over our research to other individuals who if they can repeat our works then it is well on its way to becoming excepted Law. all sharks are fish but not all fish are sharks kinda stuff. we generally don't refer to the theories of physics in general

February 11, 2013 at 7:29 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"why is it still referred to as the theory of evolution and not the laws of evolution??"

Ikeithlu is correct. A "theory" in science is something that has been observed and experimented. You believe "theory" to mean something more along the lines of "hypothesis". That's not what a scientific theory is.

More common scientific theories that I don't hear you trying to debase because they aren't "laws": gravity, relativity, cell theory, germ theory, etc.

February 11, 2013 at 7:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"i beg to differ, respectfully, thats the normal progression."

No, it absolutely is not.

"we come up with something new, we call it the theory of whatever"

Wrong. Scientists come up with a hypothesis, then test it over and over and over, then it becomes a theory.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

"we turn over our research to other individuals who if they can repeat our works then it is well on its way to becoming excepted Law."

Wrong.

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law."

"all sharks are fish but not all fish are sharks kinda stuff."

That's not a theory or a law. It's a just a fact about sharks.

"we generally don't refer to the theories of physics in general"

Wrong. Acoustic theory, atomic theory, theory of relativity, string theory, quantum field theory.

You should really do more research before you continue to spout your ignorance.

February 11, 2013 at 7:37 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

A law describes a simple relationship between two or more variables, usually expressed mathematically. eg Ohm's Law, or Boyle's Law. A theory is an all-encompassing explanation for an area of science: string theory, germ theory, atomic theory, relativity theory. Evolution can be expressed in a couple of sentences that explains the diversity of life, but to describe it takes volumes. The mechanisms and specific examples are still being discovered, and NO paradigm has challenged it for over 150 years.

February 11, 2013 at 7:40 p.m.
goatman said...

you are right..i did leave out the first step..the law describes the what, the theory describes the why..actually a theory is a summary of a hypothesis or group thereof..but how is the average joe supposed to disprove theories such as evolution? where is this observation? i can still see an apple fall from a tree but show me the other.. no argument on cell theory at all but to me its a description of an entity rather than an action.. and as far as germ theory goes we can all look thru a microscope and see the cells again these are things not actions..

not to diminish this to a grade school argument but gravity is an expression of an interaction between two objects.. explain to me the HOW of evolution from ape to human

February 11, 2013 at 8:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"the law describes the what, the theory describes the why"

Wrong again. They both describe the what, the why, the how, and the what if.

"actually a theory is a summary of a hypothesis or group thereof"

No. It is much more than a hypothesis.

"but how is the average joe supposed to disprove theories such as evolution? where is this observation?"

Show that organisms do not evolve but I doubt the "average joe" is doing much disproving of scientific theories. Bacteria is a great example of evolution on a scale and time frame humans can observe.

"no argument on cell theory at all but to me its a description of an entity rather than an action"

It's actually the description of the cell and it's action.

"and as far as germ theory goes we can all look thru a microscope and see the cells again these are things not actions.."

You're wrong. They are cells but these cells actually do things. They are not inanimate. Infectious diseases require action.

"explain to me the HOW of evolution from ape to human"

Ape + environmental pressures/stimuli + sex + time = Speciation (primates that look more human). Human evolution is just a small piece in the enormous puzzle that is evolution.

February 11, 2013 at 8:12 p.m.
goatman said...

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

please apply this to evolution..

"we generally don't refer to the theories of physics in general"

Wrong. Acoustic theory, atomic theory, theory of relativity, string theory, quantum field theory.

wrong back at you we common folk refer to the laws of physics of which these are many theories

February 11, 2013 at 8:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"please apply this to evolution.."

I already did. Do your own research. I'm not going to explain evolution to you again. Evolution is based on an extensive body of facts that has been repeatedly confirmed over nearly 200 years through much observation, experimentation, and prediction.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

"wrong back at you we common folk refer to the laws of physics of which these are many theories"

There are more than just the laws of physics. There are many theories of physics as well. It's not my fault you "common folk" are ignorant of these facts.

February 11, 2013 at 8:22 p.m.
goatman said...

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. from chemistry.about.com

Bacteria is a great example of evolution on a scale and time frame humans can observe.

and what is the bacteria evolving into?

February 11, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."

You conveniently left out the most important part of the definition. That's why you were wrong.

"and what is the bacteria evolving into?"

They aren't evolving "into" anything. They evolve resistance to antibiotics. Organisms do not evolve "into" other organisms. Their genetic makeup is altered and that causes them to take on certain/different characteristics. If this goes on long enough, their genes will get to a point where the organisms can no longer mate with it's ancestors. Thats called speciation. Evolution creates novel species.

February 11, 2013 at 8:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Evolution has more evidence to support it than most theories, primarily because there are so many organisms and so many areas of science that add information consistent with evolution (such as genetics, cladistics, biogeography, paleontology, geology, embryology, comparative anatomy, etc). That you don't know about it reflects that you either choose not to or haven't had time to learn. That you don't know does not mean it doesn't exist.

As for human evolution, the evidence is extensive. Get a good physical anthropology text book, and visit the new exhibit at the Museum of Natural history in Washington DC. It will amaze you.

February 11, 2013 at 8:44 p.m.
goatman said...

i accept more than you might realize and evolution and speciation YES but where i draw my own personal line is the intimation they we came from apes.

i should have been more specific i apologize.

February 11, 2013 at 8:56 p.m.
goatman said...

and what i meant about " body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." i only meant us coming from apes , obviously the most important evolution that is still yet to be shown in action and thus made a law.

February 11, 2013 at 9:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"where i draw my own personal line is the intimation they we came from apes."

And you are wrong and illogical. There is a plethora of indisputable evidence that proves humans evolved from primates.

"i only meant us coming from apes"

The fossil record and DNA evidence alone are enough. Both are observable and have been experimented on extensively.

"obviously the most important evolution that is still yet to be shown in action and thus made a law."

It is impossible to show something (human evolution) in action that takes hundreds of thousands of years to occur. You can observe evolution in many organism yet you exclude humans for no good reason other than you don't think humans evolved. Not only is that illogical, but it is scientifically and factually incorrect.

THEORIES DO NOT BECOME LAWS, MORON! How many times do I have to say that? You're wrong about everything you have said to this point. You're ignoring the evidence and espousing your own, bunk science.

February 11, 2013 at 9:07 p.m.
goatman said...

actually, i have rather enjoyed keeping you occupied for the better part of this evening.. i honestly don't care where we came from...ha...man that was fun...can we do it again tomorrow?? different topic please...

February 11, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman,

"actually, i have rather enjoyed keeping you occupied for the better part of this evening"

You haven't kept me occupied. You're deluded for believing so. I would post here whether you post or not. You have made yourself look very ignorant though. You'd never admit it but that's why you're acting like this was all a game.

"i honestly don't care where we came from."

Yes, you do. You're just tired of getting your ignorance thrown in your face.

"ha...man that was fun."

LMFAO! You're a sociopath. You're using a common tactic used by your ilk. It's called feigned indifference.

"can we do it again tomorrow?? different topic please..."

If you would like to return here tomorrow to repeat your attempts to look like a blithering idiot, be my guest. LMFAO!

February 11, 2013 at 9:50 p.m.
goatman said...

Reasons for getting the last word

Getting the last word means that you win the debate. It also shows your moral superiority, and willingness to stand your ground. This should convince your opponent that you are correct, and will certainly impress your fellow Wikipedians. It is particularly important to get the last word where you are in some doubts as to the merits of your case. The last word will serve as a clinching argument that will make up for any deficiencies in your logic. Achieving the last word now also brings the advantage that you may subsequently point to your success in this debate as the clinching argument in future debates. However, if you did not win the last discussion, we still recommend claiming incessantly that you did.

now i see where your coming from

February 11, 2013 at 10:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chris aka goatman,

"It is particularly important to get the last word where you are in some doubts as to the merits of your case."

Is that why you keep trying to post after me?

"The last word will serve as a clinching argument that will make up for any deficiencies in your logic."

I haven't made any argument in my last word. I'm just addressing your posts.

"However, if you did not win the last discussion, we still recommend claiming incessantly that you did."

I've made no such claim.

"now i see where your coming from"

You're deluded.

February 11, 2013 at 10:49 p.m.
goatman said...

you know how to use the white pages..high five!!

February 11, 2013 at 11:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman chris,

"you know how to use the white pages..high five!!"

You know how to give away too much information about yourself! Low Five!!

February 11, 2013 at 11:11 p.m.
goatman said...

why would you even bother to look?

February 11, 2013 at 11:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

goatman chris,

Do you recall saying this?

"p.s. ooh ooh please do mine, come on it will be fun"

February 11, 2013 at 11:33 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.