Thursday, December 22, 2005
WSJ Econoblog
In today's Wall Street Journal online edition, the econoblog features an all time favorite economics professor of mine, Dr. John-Charles Bradbury, discussing the market for relief pitchers in this year's off-season. Also joing in the blog is Dr. Raymond Sauer, a terrific economist from Clemson University, who I was lucky enough to hear at a lecture last year. Both men are very interested in economics applied to sports, and in this conversation, particularly baseball.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
These are good points but just as many hypocritical things are wrong with the republican party.
PLus democrats acknowledge science which republicans dont. LIke evolution. It may be 'just a theory' but so is gravity. ITs a fact that it exists. Republicans are just too narrow minded to realize it.
Merry Christmas!!!
Evolution= Theory
Gravity= Law
Open a science book.
The term "theory" still indicates significant scientific support of the idea. Infact, most "conservatives" wouldn't argue the theory of evolution. Being a theory however, there should be more than one side presented.
Don't confuse the the LAW of gravity with the THEORY of evolution. One is undeniable, the other has not been significantly proven false.
Republicans don't deny science. We know that it is a scientific fact that when a bomb is dropped on terrorists, they cease to terrorize.
How's that for science?
Its a matter of symantics. Since it is impossible to prove that the entire universe is subjected to the same "Law of gravity" it is impossible to prove it is a universal law.
Secondly, the only reson evolution is 'only a theory' is because it cannot be reproduced in a labratory situation since it takes millions of years to take place. I like listening to people like you. I have a friend who told me one time, "You know, Christian science is making huge strides in proving evolution to be a faulted theory." He cited the bible a couple of times and even gave a me a christian science magazine with a cover article about evolution. Inside a scientist examined fossils (none of which are more then 4000 years old of course) and discuses how dinosaur fossils were placed there by God to fool 'unbeleivers' (like me i guess).
I, personally, just think thats absurd. Now this of course is coming from a non practicing christian. I have absolutely no problem with people beleiving in Intelligent Design. My problem is how people want science classes to teach it, not because i am fundementally against it, but because it is simply not science. You seem to know what you're talking about so you'd have to agree. There is absolutely no scientific proof of itelligent design. There is no observable evidence. Simply put, there is no scientific basis for intelligent design.
And lastly, those terrorists who are bombed cease to terrorize, i doubt anybody even a flaming liberal (Even guy who is from Massachussets and probably gay) wouldn't disagree with that. However the terrorists children won't.
Post a Comment