At the high school level, biology classes required a lot of chemistry, and a fair amount of physics.
Marcusmoon, the theory of thermodynamics is not part of the standard high school biology curriculum because the theory of thermodynamics is a theory of physics. You appear to be ignoring the very reason that science is separated into different branches in the first place. This is the standard high school biology curriculum:-
Curriculum Topics Covered in High School Science Courses
The following is a list of curriculum topics covered in selected High School science courses.
Biology
Use methods of qualitative and quantitative observation.
Describe the general structures, functions, biochemistry and diversity of cells.
Describe levels of organization.
Explain perpetuation of species.
Apply laws of classical genetics and the principles of chromosomal inheritance to problems of genetic differences in individuals.
Explain the general functions of DNA and RNA.
Compare scientific theories of the origin and evolution of living things.
Apply methods of taxonomy to classify organism.
Identify career opportunities in the biological area.
Describe the characteristics of microorganisms.
Describe general anatomy and physiology of plant and animals.
Explain the biological behavior of living things.
Understand the relationships in energy flow patterns, and the development of the ecosystem.
Analyze the skills required for the practice of biotechnology.
https://www.genome.gov/12011721/
This will be my very last post here. I am done with this website, the trolls who use it, and the general stupidity of mankind.
Have a good one.
Amazing! It's my debate title, but I didn't mean it now
But I did mean it. I purposefully used a sensationalist debate title. But that makes me sensationalist in the same way that kissing babies made Hitler compassionate.
Please take the hint. Nobody wants you here on this site.
ignoring real fascists (Middle East, North African, and some Asian countries)
Islam is not the same thing as fascism, you ignorant 12 year old idiot. One is a religion invented in the 7th century and the other is a political ideology invented in the 20th century. How is it even possible that you are so stupid?
Nom, it is the central concept of the book..
That's strange, because Bernays does not mention the phrase "social engineering" anywhere in the entire book. You are such an utterly stupid liar that it is frustrating even talking to you.
Here is a copy of the book for anybody who wants to run a search on the phrase:-
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/
I can't even believe I am arguing with you that wording you used does not belong to Edward Bernays. You must literally be retarded.
Nom, this is another classic projection.
Yes, and clearly you are the one doing it. You invented your own argument, twice claimed it was mine, and when I protested you claimed it must be mine because I mentioned Edward Bernays in a post I wrote 24 hours ago. All you are doing is making up your own bullshit and claiming it is what other people believe. That is not debate. That is just you being an arse.
Bernay's book "Propaganda" was published in 1928
I have read Propaganda from cover to cover and referenced it extensively in my university dissertation. I still have a copy of it somewhere on my old hard drive. Given this fact, I would like to know why you have decided to pretend that a book written for students of public relations is actually a book about Nazi "social engineering"?
It seems that you are not content to merely misrepresent my own arguments, but now you are trying to do the exact same thing to Edward Bernays!!!!!
You cant be serious......
I never joke with fascists. You chose to use wording which you pretended was mine. When I pointed out you were lying, you then claimed it was Edward Bernays' wording. It belongs to neither of us because you are the one who used it.
I've read two of his books and an essay by him
No, you are a liar who Googled Edward Bernays shortly after you decided you were going to blame him for the false argument YOU INVENTED and then claimed was my own.
You're pathetic and stupid.
With a sense of personal responsibility this abysmally low
Where is your sense of responsibility not to misrepresent the arguments of the people you talk to? You are not simply a liar, but a world class hypocrite to boot.
You invoked Edward Bernays who has multiple books detailing his conception of "Social Engineers"
No he hasn't you retarded imbecile. He has not written a single book about social engineering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdwardBernays#Books
God, why are you so stupid?
The closest he ever came was a book he wrote in 1955 called The Engineering of Consent. If this is indeed what you are referring to, then can you explain why you are blaming Germans in the 1930s for not reading a book which was not written until 1955?
I'm sure you can shed some light on this mystery for us. Does it have to do with your belief that time is not real?
Have you read anything I said on the matter
I have done my utmost best not to, but unfortunately some of your weak-minded, nonsensical abuse of language penetrated my retina in a moment of weakness.
I read enough to understand that you want to punish the ordinary German people who fell victim to the lies of the Nazis, despite them having no prior experience of Nazi propaganda. The confusing thing is that in contemporary life we are quite familiar with the techniques of Nazi propaganda, and chief among them is making up your opponent's beliefs for them.
Hence, on the one hand, you berate the German people for being victims of a party of complete liars, and on the other, you have fallen victim to the exact same methods of propaganda, since you are copying them verbatim.
you do not even understand your own position
So let me get this straight, brother. You tell me what my beliefs are, and when I disagree with you, you tell me it is because I do not understand my beliefs?
Is that seriously what just happened?
How are you not under permanent psychiatric supervision?
With a sense of personal responsibility this abysmally low
It isn't about "personal responsibility" you complete fool. Nobody had ever seen Nazi propaganda before. You want to punish people for falling victim to a con the world had never seen before? How are you any better than Hitler?
This statement is to my point exactly
Something tells me you are not going to explain to any of us how it is "to your point".
Your position is
So your "point" appears to be that you are a Nazi who repeatedly makes up his opponent's argument for him. Is that your "point"?
is simply that they were re-engineered sub-consciously
No, those were your words, not mine. I agreed with you on the basis of the obvious underlying point that the German people were the victims of a coordinated propaganda campaign. You are the only person here who has even mentioned engineering, so congratulations on attacking your own argument, you complete fucking halfwit.
I honestly have no more time for this stupidity of yours. You are being ridiculous (as usual) so there is little point in trying to reason with you.
You are taking the position that full-grown adults hold little to no real responsibility for themselves
Am I? Well, thanks for letting me know. I had no idea. It's lucky I have you to tell me what I think otherwise I'd be completely lost.
Please, tell me more about how we should punish people who are conned for being conned. That sounds to me like a theory I might have heard somewhere before. Where was it now?
Ah yes, that's right. 1930's Germany.
@xMathFanx
You just got schooled like the dopey troll you are.
You agree with the statement as-is or with the obvious sarcasm I intended/employed?
We do not prosecute the victims of fraud in my country. Perhaps you feel that warrants sarcasm, but then again very little of what you write is worth reading anyway.
Your right--the German citizens that bought into Nazism "hook-line-and-sinker" were passive victims of social re-engineering.......
I agree completely.
Well, first of all, fascism had never been institutionalised as a serious political system at the state level before. The German people simply had no experience in recognising Nazi propaganda.
Second, it was only really during that era that writers such as Ed Bernays etc... began publishing the first works on propaganda. Way back then, the word "propaganda" did not have the negative connotations that it has today, and our modern disdain for the word is in no small part because of Nazi propaganda.
Third, Hitler was producing real economic results and slowly putting Germany back together again after a humiliating defeat which many cost many German nationalists their dignity.
Finally, Nazism struck like a wave, taking almost everything with it in its path and crushing whatever remained in way of opposition. The more power the Nazis obtained, the more they used that power to obtain more power, and so their rise became exponential.
It just looks like the man answered your question and stayed on topic.
Hi @FactMachine.
Bye @FactMachine.
If you are lying and you don't know you are lying then you are not lying, you are just wrong. Unless of course you are lying to yourself as well.
Good comment.
condemn countries in the Middle East
I'm condemning Ronald Reagan because your debate is about Ronald Reagan you goosestepping halfwit. Your debate isn't about "countries in the Middle East". God, why are you so stupid?
Interesting that you don't have the same labeling terminology towards countries in the Middle East that are guilty of worse.
You literally made that up you mad Nazi halfwit. You have never asked my opinion about death squads, nor have you ever provided any examples of governments which use them, in the Middle East or anywhere else on planet Earth.
You are literally fucking ridiculous. Stop making up arguments and telling me they are mine, and stop deflecting the topic of your own debate.
Well let's use your claims Nom.
you can't condemn Obama.
That is your claim, you mad Nazi halfwit. Not mine.
More importantly, your thread is about Ronald Reagan, so stfu talking about Obama.
Conservatives donate almost double to the poor.
Another spectacular distortion of the facts. Conservatives donate to the Church, which in turn donates to the poor. Minus gifts to the Church, Democrats give significantly more to charity than Conservatives do.
What Nom doesn't understand is that he is a multiple type troll.
And you decided that the best way to "prove" that was to come in here and troll me?
Goodbye bronto. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Peter Strzok and Fusion GPS is proven common knowledge.
Nothing you say is "common knowledge" to anybody without a swastika tattoo.
Nope
Yup.
Oprah claims the school scandal happened
Oprah can claim whatever she likes. A court of law acquitted the accused. How is it possible that when discussing Trump you respect due legal process, but when discussing Oprah you do not even respect a full court acquittal?
So show us 75 guilty verdicts.
Show us 75 smoking chimneys without also showing us a fire.
Both of my allegations are proven.
Liar. Oprah has not been convicted of any wrongdoing. If an allegation is enough to prove something, then by the same definition Trump is guilty of four rapes.
The girls school scandal happened, and she admits it happened. Google it.
OK bronto.
Woman acquitted in Oprah school scandal
Wait for rebuttal.
Is that what you think you are doing? Ahahahaha!
You are mad, bronto. Mad.
Hillary Clinton claims to be a Goldwater girl.
Hitler was a hero because.... Genghis Khan! Vlad The Impaler!!
Oh no wait. Attacking someone else does not make the person I am defending good. Go figure.
Hey I thought I was fact machine!!!!
Hi @FactMachine.
Bye @FactMachine.
Unproven
Ah, the Bill Cosby defence. Interesting. So you attack Oprah with unproven allegations but then you have a problem when someone does the exact same thing to Trump? Are you even for real?
You cannot be taken seriously when you have one set of standards for discussing Trump and the literal opposite set of standards for discussing Oprah. When you discuss opponents of Trump, the most overt fake news blogs and fascist propaganda memes suddenly become all the proof you need to convict someone. The perfect example is Hillary Clinton. Or Muslims.
Normal for all billionaires
Interesting. So becoming a billionaire requires one to break the law 75 times?
How is it even possible that your first sentence reads, "unproven" and your second is a ridiculous claim for which you have provided no proof?
The dossier was fake
Ahahahahahahahaha!
President Trump is racist only in the frenzied minds of liberals.
He was sued by the federal government for systematic housing discrimination against blacks. There are thousands, THOUSANDS of pages of evidence incriminating him as a racist. His father was also a notorious racist so the apple does not fall far from the tree.
Your neo-Nazi propaganda is insulting to the memory of everybody who died fighting you wingnuts the first time.
‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/
A bit vague for my taste Con. By moral do you mean having the same hump buddy boyfriend for decades without marrying him
I think he means who has the smallest number of neo-Nazis and KKK activists supporting their political policies.
You must have missed the Orah girls' school scandal.
Ahahahahahaha!.
You must have missed the four rapes, seventy five open legal cases, dozens of sexual assaults, the treason against the United States, the attacks against everybody who investigates, the Federal Government's case for housing discrimination, the jokes about disabled and black people and the fact that his voting base consists of southern white supremacists and KKK members.
In a 2007 deposition, Trump admitted he had borrowed “a small amount” from his father’s estate: ‘I think it was like in the $9 million range.” And as Trump’s casinos ran into trouble, Trump’s father also purchased $3.5 million gaming chips, but did not use them, so the casino would have enough cash to make payments on its mortgage — a transaction which casino authorities later said was an illegal loan.
I seen you claiming their is 70 genders 1 time.
Hi @FactMachine.
Bye @FactMachine.
There is a 100% consensus that climate change is real
And there is a 97 percent consensus that climate change is being caused by humans, so what's your point?
Oh, you don't have one? How unusual.
I do not deny that the climate is changing.
The 97 percent scientific consensus is not that "the climate is changing" you impossibly dishonest buffoon. The consensus is that "human activities" are causing the radical climate problems witnessed over the last century.
No--but "Science Denier" is a somewhat appropriate label based on many of your other positions.
You are a lying troll. I have never denied any form of science at any time on this website, which explains why you were unable to provide any examples to support your bitter personal attack. The opposite is in fact true (i.e. that you frequently deny science). This can be proven by, among other things, your claim that "The flow of time is an illusion". See:-
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
I am banning you for being pathetic. You cannot best me in fair debate and that is exactly why you lie so much. To be perfectly frank, you are a complete failure held together by nothing but ego.
Nomenclature is a science denier
I gave you an official statement from NASA and you responded by posting an article called "Flawed Climate Models" by two men who do not have a SINGLE SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATION BETWEEN THEM.
Liar.
Consensus on what?
The very statement itself explains what the consensus is.
You know damned well that formulating a hypothesis is not demonstrating a conclusion.
You know damned well that we are not talking about a "hypothesis".
Rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
That is not a hypothesis, so take your upside down neo-Nazi language and choke on it pal. You are a common liar.
I underlined the critical language that shows that NASA recognizes that 97% of climate scientists have agreed on the hypothesis.
Marcus, when I want to know the opinion of NASA I will ask NASA, not a pathetic global warming denier who wants to misrepresent NASA.
Nomenclature is a science denier.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Official statement from 18 different top scientific associations:-
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Just like every other Nazi here Marcus, when your argument fails you resort to simply turning the truth upside down.
Are you mad?
Reagan funded terrorist states in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. He labelled them "fledgling democracies". In El Salvador, the government literally sent out roving military death squads at night to execute dissidents and their families.
Under Reagan's leadership, the United States of America became the only state in recorded history to be convicted of international terrorism after the world court ruled it had "unlawfully used force" in the bombing of Nicaragua.
He willingly traded with and aided apartheid South Africa, even sidestepping congressional legislation aimed at stopping him.
He oversaw the selling of arms to Iran, including HAWK and TOW missiles.
He sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein. The exact same chemical and biological weapons Saddam used to gas his own people.
Under Reagan, the American CIA became a drug smuggling operation to rival the top Colombian cartels.
How about you start another thread and ask if Hitler was the best leader of Germany in modern history? You know you want to. Secretly.
The leftist media's approval rating is like 12%.
Every lie that you tell and every myth that you proliferate just proves my point. Professors Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky proved that the media is not "leftist" in 1988, after an exhaustive study of the last half century's worth of American media, using multiple academic methodologies. I must have made this point to you four or five times, but every single day you ignore this fact and tell the exact same lie!
The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader
https://www.amazon.com/
