just care

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Have you read Dr. Zeus sequel to ( Do you like my hat? )

It's entitled ( I do not like your hat , you f**king liberal )

It's some good reading right there !!!

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Fredrick Hyak wrote it and it is a explanation of how a society gives up freedom and property to a central government and the people change from citizens to subjects.

Why Nations Fail examines the decline in freedoms, property rights and moral standards inch by inch until there is nothing to hold the people together and make the country work.

Having read Origin of Species years ago, I am now in the middle of Darwin's Doubt which examines the genetic changes that would have to have come about to have the Cambrian Explosion happen according to Darwinian theory. Geneticists armed with today's knowledge of genetics and mutations examine the likelihood of the changes happening according to Darwin's concepts. Using today's computers they raise some serious challenges to the theory. It is a slow read and I had to buy the book because no library had it locally (we live in the middle of nowhere) and it can't be read all in a few days. Again worth the time, particularly if your library has it.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

E.T.'s been messin with the DNA again. We've been tweaked. I'm O K with that. Beats running the plains hunting and gathering.

Evangel

BIBLE

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

How many of those listed books have you read, and if any, what did you glean from them. In other words, do you have some profound understanding from reading Tyson, or are you just trying to impress us by posting a quote from Tyson?

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

I thought you all might like a little background on Tyson, so i Googled him. This is what I found
It does help explain why he chose certain books and his reasons for doing so, doesn't it?
RealClearPolitics

«»
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Troll of the Year

By Carl M. Cannon - Jan
Perhaps the most gratuitous display of holiday season boorishness came from the Twitter account of religion-baiting scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. The ubiquitous astrophysicist spent Christmas Day mocking those who celebrate the birth of Jesus.

“QUESTION: This year what do all the world’s Muslims and Jews call December 25th,” he tweeted. “ANSWER: Thursday.”

Eight minutes later Tyson sent another epistle from his @neiltyson Twitter account: “On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would t***sform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642.”

Tysons’ tweeps tend to worship the man, but some found his Christmas snark unappealing. “Hi @neiltyson, trolling Christians on Dec. 25 is so EDGY,” wrote one. “Please let me know when you troll Muslims on Ramadan. Merry Christmas!”

Once upon a time, Tyson’s frequent attacks on Christianity would have been considered blasphemy. Today, it’s called Internet trolling. In the Middle Ages, he might have been burned at the stake. In the 21st century, he has a television show. I suppose that’s progress, although distinguishing yourself for boorish behavior in an e******n year is an accomplishment in itself.

Iowa Republican Joni Ernst, running for Senate in a state that had never sent a woman to Washington, was compared to a farmyard “chick” by her male opponent. Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor accused his Republican opponent, Tom Cotton, of v****g “against preparing America for p******cs like Ebola.” Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan was accused by incumbent Sen. Mark Begich of releasing from prison a sex offender who murdered an elderly couple and brutalized their infant granddaughter.

Meanwhile, David Perdue, a Georgia Republican, aired TV spots accusing Democrat Michelle Nunn of running a foundation that “gave money to organizations linked to terrorists.” The organization she headed was George H.W. Bush’s Points of Light Foundation. The National Rifle Association ran an attack ad against Sen. Mary Landrieu depicting a home invasion in which a young mother cannot protect herself or her newborn baby because Landrieu “v**ed to take away your gun rights.”

As I said, being conspicuous for duplicity and incivility in 2014 required a special kind of talent, the very type possessed by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Early in the year, Tyson began hosting Fox TV’s “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey,” a reprise of Carl Sagan’s 1980 PBS tour de force “Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.” Tyson seemed the perfect choice to moderate, and not merely because of his Ivy League academic degrees in astrophysics and his extensive writing, teaching, and consulting on space policy. Tyson reports a momentous encounter as a teenager with Sagan. One assumes that to be true, but given the whoppers Tyson told about George W. Bush — a man who directly elevated Tyson’s career — the empiricist’s mind wonders.

The first episode of the new “Cosmos,” which aired in March, included a touching tribute to the famed astronomer before veering into Tyson’s personal gravitational field: bashing Christianity. He invoked 16th-century Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno, whom Tyson describes as a “martyr for science,” supposedly because he was executed for embracing Copernicus’ sun-centered solar system and believing that the universe was infinite.

This is mangled history. Bruno was indeed burnt at the stake, but not over astronomy. A theologian, not a scientist, the friar arrived at his notions of outer space via faith and was accused in the Inquisition of eight charges, all but one relating to church doctrine. He was executed, in other words, for practicing magic, denying the divinity of Christ and the virgin birth. He also picked political fights everywhere he went. He was, in other words, Neil Tyson’s kind of guy.

In his crusade against religion, Tyson is willing to inflict collateral damage. His standard stump speech includes an invented newspaper headline (“Half the schools in the district are below average”); conjures up a f**e quote from an unnamed congressman (“I have changed my views 360 degrees on that issue”); and dismisses U.S. physicians as “i***ts” in a convoluted story ridiculing those who pray when they find they have cancer. He gets laughs from his audiences for this stuff, which is apparently his aim, and he’s not above slandering actual people. This is how he thanked George W. Bush, in fact, for appointing him to a prestigious White House panel to study the future of U.S. space exploration.

Let’s put it in Tyson’s own words:

“Here’s what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 attacks], gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish ‘we’ from ‘they.’ And how does he do it? He says, ‘Our God’ — of course it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail, let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, “Our God is the God” — he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis — “Our God is the God who named the stars.”

That’s quite a story: completely wrong in all of its particulars and in its larger point. Tyson mangles Genesis and misquotes Bush, not once but twice. He puts Bush’s (misquoted) comment in the wrong year and the wrong context. It actually comes from one of the most poignant speeches of his presidency. Bush was not talking not 9/11; he was eulogizing the seven astronauts who lost their lives on the space shuttle Columbia — a subject that Tyson supposedly cares about. And Bush never said “Our God.” He said: “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.”

As for Tyson’s statement “Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament,” that’s theology, not science. It may or may not be good theology, but it was George W. Bush who said this before Neil Tyson — and he took heat from some evangelicals for it. Also, it was Bush, not Tyson, who went around proclaiming Islam to be a “religion of peace” after 9/11. In other words, the moral of Tyson’s snarky little story is the exact opposite of what really happened. It’s a lie, or rather a series of lies, on a scale rare even for Washington.

When called on his prevarications by The Federalist, Tyson dissembled for months, accused his critics of “eavesdropping,” and called on his acolytes to find the quote for him — crowd-sourcing his research, after the fact. An odd example of the scientific method, one might say. When all that failed, his minions scrubbed the controversy from Wikipedia and plotted how to remove The Federalist from Wikipedia as well.

So that was the context of Tyson’s nasty little Christmas tweets (also unmentioned on Wikipedia). It can be noted — because you’re never sure of anything Neil Tyson says — that Isaac Newton was indeed born on December 25, at least in the old Julian calendar.

But Sir Isaac Newton would have been appalled at being used as a foil to attack people of faith — as Newton was a believer himself. “We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy,” he wrote in 1704. “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Was the Tyson Chicken company really in need of a book being written, or is the reality that this Tyson moron is nothing more than a borish Democrap chicken?

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Due to the overall FEAR about any Liberal reading anything that may give them some new ideas on how to screw up the USA, I would strongly advocate you stick to reading something simple like the "Life and Times of Howdy Doodie". Should be a safe read for YOU and the rest of the Free World.

Glaucon

It seems you looking for and finding some views that do not support the THEORY of evolution. That theory has stood many attempts to refute it, but as yet, it has survived every and all attempts to refute it. If it is ever refuted, I will be the first to deny it. So far, it explains all we know and has not rival theory.

Glaucon

I think all copies of Howdy Doodie are checked out by right wing extremists and the waiting list is very long. I don't know of anything more simple and any group more simple, so let's avoid the stuff that could possibly make us think.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

You are very mistaken. Conservatives are reading the US Constitution and hard working to find the solutions for what your Black Kenyan Lover Boi has done wrong to this Nation.

We are also very well aware that most Democraps do not know how to read, and love to pass bills and then say pass it so we can know what was in it. So again, the Howdy Doodie suggestion is your best bet.

VladimirPee

Lets not think. Lets walk around saying Hope and Change and make believe we are electing someone who actually delivered Hope and Change in Chicago for 20 years.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

No, I am looking for a logical explanation, knowing that no theory can be proven one way or another. Neither Darwin's Doubt nor The Origin of Species seems to be the entire explanation, and since we do not have time travel to take us back to the Cambrian era we will never know. Unlike you, my mind is not made up. Even Darwin admitted that he had some major concerned about his explanation for the development of life forms on the planet. Wouldn't it be fascinating if we could go to some other planet where evolution was in the Cambrian period and find out what happens to the development there?

melbell Loc: California / Kentucky

Numbers 1,2_3,4,6 and I skimmed The art of war.
Number 1 I reread and still have much to learn, let alone apply.

Have you read them all?