I am not defining terms. I am calling out your blatant bigotry. Or, better yet, why don't you simply stopped saying blatantly bigoted things? That could help, as well. "On the other hand..." The "not having $600 left is nonsense," of course. Gas prices are up over last year as there was a worldwide oil glut, so much so that oil futures were going for less than $0.00. So it is true that gas prices are up over last year, but are about where they were a decade ago, not adjusted for inflation. Now, we have world-wide supply chain issues, so things are going to cost more. Once those supply chain issues are resolved, prices will stabilize. This is no more Biden's "fault" than the ridiculously low gas prices in Spring, 2020 were Trump's "success." Another idiotic, short-sighted canard.
1. This is a non blue check twitter account, so who the hell knows if it's even true? 2. 4 of those are related to fossil fuels. Demand for that was artificially low a year ago due to the pandemic. We'd be well and truly ********ed if prices were NOT alot higher. This tweet reminds me of something Al Franken wrote about Dead Fat Rush-it's like a punishment for knowing things. Only someone who is an imbecile on public policy, or thinks his audience are imbeciles on public policy, would post this. 3. Assuming the used car prices are correct, the supply of cars was severely impacted by COVID directly, and indirectly by worldwide chip shortages. 4. The rest of the items are not a problem.
@Karl K We’ve created nearly five million jobs since I took office in January. That’s ten times the average monthly rate I inherited from my predecessor.— President Biden (@POTUS) October 14, 2021
At least he said "we" and not "I," which puts him ahead of Trump. But of course, Presidents don't create jobs*, lower gas prices, or deliver rain on command. * Well they do eventually though sound long-term policies. But not in the short term, aside from their role in raising the deficit through tax cuts/stimulus spending.
That's not the real problem with it. The real problem is there's no non-subjective reason to prefer it to a doctrine of Unintelligent Design. Indeed what passes for evidence in this sort of sphere may actually favor UD...
"Unintelligent Design." I recently read a 2018 article from Psychology Today by an evolutionary biologist on the subject.
You skipped over the first two parts. String theory, life on other planets, etc, are all testable and because they are testable, they can be assumed to either true or false (or with some probability based on testing). ID cannot be tested via the scientific method, and therefor should not be part of non-religious education. Just calling it like it is.
Remember when 45 got hugs from toddlers? President Biden visited a daycare today—the result is ❤️ ♥️ 💜 pic.twitter.com/h6jg4Wc4l4— Scott Dworkin (@funder) October 15, 2021
Urolagnia. But at his age it's less of an act of sexual dominance and more a lack of bladder control.
This is Young Earth Creationism, not Intelligent Design. It is Young Earth Creationists that accept microevolution but not macroevolution (speciation). Intelligent Design supporters like Michael Behe explicitly say they accept evolution on a LONG time line. Have you even bothered to read "Darwin's Black Box"? They accept evolution from one SPECIES to another SPECIES. ID is more about the idea that there comes a point where evolution needs a helping hand at major taxonomic levels, not that macroevolution doesn't happen at all. Michael Behe explicitly stated Intelligent Design has no issue with evolution, only that natural selection doesn't explain the ENTIRETY of evolution (although he contradicted this under oath in the Dover Trial). Regardless, every example he provided in his book has been shown to be misleading. His concept of Irreducible Complexity has been shown to be flawed. That is why after 25+ years no reputable university teaches ID as a legitimate theory - because it's not. This demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is not a mechanism for speciation - absolutely no one, well no non-creationist anyway, teaches that evolution is a mechanism for speciation. It's utter and absolute nonsense. A result is never considered to be the mechanism causing the result. Evolution is change over time. Speciation, also known as macroevolution which is a form of evolution, is the result of a new species from an older species. Evolution is not considered to be a mechanism for evolution. Change over time is not argued to be a mechanism for change over time. Natural selection is a mechanism that causes change over time. In fact, there are four accepted biological mechanisms of evolution: gene flow, genetic drift, mutations and natural selection. In humans there is arguably a fifth mechanism: non-random mating based on specific cultural preferences. Gene flow causes two different populations to change over time and become more similar to each other. Genetic drift, mutations and natural selection cause two different populations to change over time and become more different to each other. These are all demonstrable facts. Michael Behe in the Dover trial admitted that if ID is considered to be science, then ASTROLOGY would also have to be considered science. That is how nonsensical and unscientific ID is. It simply isn't science and should never be taught as science. This is the problem with ID, it says nothing - it's utter nonsense. THAT is why it is not taught - it contributes nothing to science and intentionally deceives and misleads people as to what the science actually says. You are a great example of that as you sit here arguing "evolution is not a mechanism for speciation", even though the statement is utter nonsense to begin with. MIchael Behe, the expert witness for ID in the Dover trial, explicitly said he accepts macroevolution and that nature alone CAN IN FACT fully explain the great diversity of life on this planet. If you would just read the actual transcript under oath from the Dover trial, you would see that he explicitly says an Intelligent Designer is NOT needed to explain the diversity of life on earth. ID is nothing but an attempt by religious people to get their religious ideas inserted into public schools. Nothing more, nothing less. It is definitely not science.
Hey everyone throwing about String Theory… You really should stop. I will not pretend to be an expert, but it is a favorite past time of mine to keep abreast of this stuff. String Theory has been abandoned as a cute math trick that is quite pointless and is not adding anything to the conversation. The large hadron particle accelerator found no proof or even inkling towards super-symmetry (susy for you lay people). Those who support String Theory think we need to build a newer, bigger accelerator to find the evidence, but they are basically just too far sunk cost into String Theory that they are unwilling to admit that it not promising, and our efforts would be better spent looking elsewhere. And the math is usually not terribly difficult, but definitely way beyond what a high school student can grasp other than really broad strokes that Brian Green can relate in a PBS NOVA special. The interpretation of the math is what is incredibly difficult. You wouldn’t even bother talking much about String Theory until you got into a graduate-degree program. Just wrapping your head around the theories we know ARE highly predictive, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is more than enough for any human being without getting into conjecture. For a thorough takedown, I would suggest listening to this woman, who knows really well what she’s talking about:
String theory is a perfect example of a scientific theory which has since been squashed, like the static universe or the expanding earth.
They should, because a lot of not rich people cheat on their taxes. But manpower and fear of losing votes means they will concentrate only on big transactions.