Recent comments
Search
Common Misconceptions
Books by Jay
Conflict and Conciliation: Faith and Politics in an Age of Global Dissonance
Despite the peaceful foundations of global monotheistic religions, the broad diversity of interpretations can lead to a sharp paradox regarding the use of force. Inevitably, we must ask ourselves: How can those who ascribe to peaceful beliefs suspend their own moral foundation to beat the drums of war? ... read more
Now Reading
Hover or click for reviews
A self-indulgent blog for people just like me - PhD, author, photographer, entrepreneur, husband, father, music-lover, and uber-geek. More about Jay
Follow THF
View Recent Posts on:
dot dot dot
dearly loved & sorely missed already.
Thats pretty funny.
marco
My respect for Geraldo just went up a notch or two, he managed to retain some semblence of intellectual standing during the screamfest with Billy. I suspect most of O'Reilly's viewers' brains have turned to complete rubbish by now.
 Needless to say, I'm in agreement with Geraldo on this one -- though I don't think O'Reilly has ever managed to make a point I agree with. hehe
I fail to see a conflict of interest here. At worst, the "financial advisors" will advise the students to take a loan via Nelnet, as opposed to another lender. Regardless, the students aren't calling the help line and asking, "how can I manage to get more money for free?". They're likely calling to see what loan options they have, which a lending company is more than willing to provide and is probably most qualified to comment on.
As the article says, Nelnet is only one of the many lenders (not even in the top 10) for the school. I would imagine a phone conversation goes something along the lines of:
Student - "Hi, I need to find $10,000 for next year's tuition."
Advisor - "No problem. Nelnet is offering interest deferred loans right now at X%."
Student - "Is that my only option?"
Advisor - "No, So-and-so bank has one that's not interest deferred, but 2% lower."
bla. bla. bla.
Regardless, unless there is actual fraud being committed, or an attempt to monopolize the lending process through unfair market practices, this is hardly a fox watching the hen-house scenario.
To clarify back on your PS, I myself fall into the school of compatibility when it comes to creationism vs. evolution. In other words, the origin of life is, imho, no way incompatible with its evolutionary process. While I believe life on this planet is billions of years old, I am completely open to the idea that the process was started by an external power, entity, process, or whatever.
What I find silly about this guy's video is not his opinion about Abiogenisis, but that he uses completely shoddy logic while smugly acting as though he has demonstrated a contradiction. The point is, who is to say that given a sufficiently large dormancy period a jar of peanut butter might not eventually spawn a race of giant schnigers (that's schnauzer combined with tiger). Or nothing at all. Hell, if the guy had a jar of peanut butter mixed by George Washington Carver himself, it would still only have been around for a ridiculously small fraction of the time that the "primordial soup" would have supposedly taken to produce life.Â
By his logic, I could point to the lack of life on the moon as proof that we are completely alone in the universe. Either way, it seems to me that this guy is trying to combine his pseudo-logic with a smug face to dupe the weak-minded into believing that they are now armed with "proof" that Darwin = Satan.
Here's the thing, apart from the fact that what he's refuting isn't Evolution, but Abiogenisis (also known as Spontaneous Generation) he's absolutely correct. This is a point that has never been refuted despite numerous attempts in the lab. That's not to say it never will be refuted, but thus far it hasn't.
 Louis Pasteur did a very good job of refuting Abiogenisis (check Wikipedia for an explanation of what he did.)
Stanley Miller did some clever experiments in which he duplicated the Earth's early atmosphere (at least what the theory on what the Earth's early atmosphere said it was at the time) and managed to produce some amino acids. (More stuff for you to Wikipedia if you're interested.) This is quite a feat, but still no life from non-life.
 In summary, I'm really not sure what, if anything, you find silly about this man's arguement; but I am sure that you can't refute it; it's supported by at least one of the greatest minds in scientific history (Pasteur).
(P.S. I'm not a Christian, nor am I a conservative, nor do I support the teaching of Creationism in schools, just so we're clear on that.)Â
My favorite part is a NYT story that quotes some of the Iraqi shopkeepers as saying that every time the media make a big deal out of something working or being safe the insurgents attack it. So McCain was basically drawing a big nice target on their backs.
Thanks for the help, John?
The Catholic mouthpiece presumes that lack of religion equates to moral bankruptcy. He then proceeds to toss threat after threat, sounding more and more like every other radical religious zealot that proposes holy war against any dissent.
It's petty bickering and schlong-thumping like this which gives all organized religion a bad name. If you disagree with the artist or the work, simply discuss it with your own followers. Trying to bankrupt the artist and the place it's displayed, attempting to hold some false righteousness over others who believe differently, and presuming to know what would insult god all show the true color of this representative; power.
He's all about control and power. This is in no way about religion.