Lawsuit over UC admissions becoming national fight

COPLEY NEWS SERVICE ^ | November 23, 2005 | Matt Krasnowski

[justshutupandtakeit]

Simple reason they are not as good as the major universities.
Notre Dame is about the best "Christian" and it does not compare with the absolute best.

Certainly a course entitled "Christianity's effect on Western Civilization" could be properly counted it all depends upon the reading list and the depth to which the teacher takes the course.

[mlc9852]

There are many good Christian colleges. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. And the large state university systems have become a liberal joke. After I read of some offering classes in porn, I was all the more relieved my daughter chose a Christian college.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I said nothing about bigger being better. My elder son is a graduate of a Lutheran college. It is ok but cannot compete with the better secular colleges. As I said only Notre Dame can even be mentioned in the same breath as the best.

What is ironic is that many of the top tier colleges started as church run institutions including Harvard and Yale.

[highball]

The University has a right to make admission standards, not a court.

That doesn't seem to stop the creationists from looking for help from activist judges, though. Isn't it funny how quickly they adopt leftist tactics to get what they want?

[furball4paws]

Many of us have noticed that similarity. If they could find a way to reconcile "the state" and "God", they wouldn't be conservatives.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker and access to: (1) The List-O-Links, (2) How to argue against a scientific theory, and (3) the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[microgood]

That doesn't seem to stop the creationists from looking for help from activist judges, though. Isn't it funny how quickly they adopt leftist tactics to get what they want?

As opposed to the evo's on FR, who worship the ACLU, Slate Magazine the NY Times or any organization that will support your cause of destroying freedom of religion everywhere you can. The funny thing is that this article is about religious classes and not science, so you should have masked your hatred for Christians a little better.

Yes, you are the true conservatives. (ROTFLOL).

[highball]

You're projecting, friend.

I said nothing about science, I only commented that it's interesting to watch people who call themselves "conservatives" ask judges to write laws.

I guess "activist judges" are only bad when you disagree with their activism, right?

[microgood]

You're projecting, friend.

No, but I do get carried away alot, and for that I apologize.

I said nothing about science, I only commented that it's interesting to watch people who call themselves "conservatives" ask judges to write laws.

I read the article again and did not get the activist judge part unless you are just referring to what they want versus current law.

As far as conservatives supporting activist judges, there are many on here that say they are conservatives and yet believe there is a wall of separation between church and state, which is really a radical left concoction by 60's activist judges.

Another group on the extreme LE side of the conservative world are equally ambivalent about personal rights and the Constitution,, so it does happen even among conservatives.

True Constitutionalists are just part of the conservative makeup.

I guess "activist judges" are only bad when you disagree with their activism, right?

Assuming this claim was true, it is no different from the evos supporting the ACLU when it is in their best interest, including having the Federal Government tell individual school districts what they must teach in clear violation of the Constitution.

I guess one person's activist judge is another person's strict constitutionalist.

[highball]

I read the article again and did not get the activist judge part unless you are just referring to what they want versus current law.

Yep, that's it.

They want judges to re-define the law to suit their desires. That's the very definition of an activist judiciary, and that's not the way it's supposed to be done.

If you want a new law, you lobby the legislature. If you don't win there, you keep trying and trying. You don't go crying to judges and short-circuit the process.

Too many people are willing to overlook activist judges if the hoped-for result is pleasing to them. That's wrong - an activist judiciary is always evil.

[timestax]

bump to the top

[tallhappy]

Hi, I missed this earlier.

So if we compare all the small subunit rRNA sequences - several hundred by now - we can't learn anything from them?

Yes. That was my point. We can learn -- and did in fact -- learn a lot by comparison even if there were no evolutionary theory.

It told a great deal about structure and function. Sequence analysis is very simple, yet very powerful. It provides a great deal of info and insight on structure and function.

[Right Wing Professor]

Yes. That was my point. We can learn -- and did in fact -- learn a lot by comparison even if there were no evolutionary theory.

A ribosome's a ribosome. The main information 16S gives you is evolutionary relationships

[tallhappy]

Wrong wrong wrong. 100% wrong.

You do not understand molecular biology at all if you hold to this comment.

A ribosome's a ribosome.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks for the constructive comment.

[tallhappy]

Try to duck with sarcasm, fine, but how was the structure of the ribosome determined?

How might you determine, for example, the mechanism of action of an antibiotic via ribosomal RNA sequence comparision?

[Right Wing Professor]

Try to duck with sarcasm, fine, but how was the structure of the ribosome determined?

X ray. Paper came out a couple of years ago.

How might you determine, for example, the mechanism of action of an antibiotic via ribosomal RNA sequence comparision

That's not how I would do it.

Antibiotics directed at ribosomes are pretty broad spectrum - indicating the ribosome structure and function is highly conserved.

[tallhappy]

How long was ribosome structure worked on and how much was worked out and known before crystals were available?

You are striking me as dimwitted and without curiousity.

[Right Wing Professor]

How long was ribosome structure worked on and how much was worked out and known before crystals were available?

Once the X-ray structure was known, most of the previous work on prediction of the RNA fold from the sequence was superseded.

You are striking me as dimwitted and without curiousity

Take your ad hominem and stick it somewhere warm.

Exactly what point are you trying to make here? If there are major conclusions about ribosome function that can be made from sequence comparison, state them.