|
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
"Wolfgang" wrote in
: Actually, the story isn't quite that simple. The flat versus spherical debate (not to mention infinite variations) raged for a long time. It certainly IS true that most educated people knew a long time ago that the question had been settled, but it was by no means a dead issue as late as the mid-15th century......any more than evolution versus intelligent design is today. Washington Irving may have popularized the myth about Columbus, but many of the sailors aboard his vessels undoubtedly had serious concerns about this spherical Earth "theory." Incidentally, while Columbus was obviously right about the shape of the Earth, he was WAY wrong about its size (thus leading him to believe that he'd arrived at the East Indies).......which had been pretty accurately estimated by a number of folks centuries earlier. Wolfgang "Settled" might be an overstatement-- after all, we still have flat earthers today. There do seem to be some historians that hold that the flat earth theorists were influential at the later Middle Ages, but most historians seem to agree that based upon a relative scarcity of traceable reference to a flat earth after about 800AD, the influence was marginal. As for Columbus, if he did in fact use a flat vs spherical Earth hypothesis to bilk Spain out of funds, it certainly wouldn't be the last time a scientist set up to disprove a straw horse to secure funding (but it might have been the first!) Size was a different matter. I think that the Late Middle Age "natural philosophers" had a fair problem understanding scale, and the fact that people didn't understand that the distance of stars was so vast as to preclude parallax errors was responsible for geocentrism holding on as long as it did. This isn't what gave Columbus problems, though. Indeed, his estimation of how far he travelled is remarkably accurate given his dead reckoning preference (see http://www.columbusnavigation.com/v1a.shtml). The problem was that he used Ptolemy's huge underestimation of circumference. Almost 500 years before Ptolemy, Eratosthenes had an estimation of circumference to within 8%. While he preferred dead reckoning, Columbus also had a quadrant on board. I would think that a well developed technique for quadrant based navigation at Columbus' time would indicate a well developed sense of a spherical earth. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@ 4ax.com: On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it science. The enlightened do not. That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know anything whatsoever about it. Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as "truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something like this, we don't make believe that it is good science. IOW, that's your "untestable hypothesis expounded as truth"... In fact, we try to make it clear that its not science at all. I don't think it is "science" and I don't suggest it be called "science." But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be universally agreed as "science." Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class action suit. Now there's an open-minded attitude AND a great use of the court system! HTH, R |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:37:38 -0500, GM wrote:
wrote: First, people cannot be "taught evolution" or "intelligent design," they can only be informed about them (or "taught _about_ them, if you prefer). Do you take yourself seriously? I mean after typing the above, can you? Like your "clarification" made any difference to anything at all? Obviously not to you and a few others. And you're perfectly entitled to be as wrong as you decide to be. That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both, as well as about religion. I don't think "intelligent design" is the way life came about and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation, but I'm certainly aware of both, and I'd make sure my children were as well. And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as well-educated as possible, and many of those would truly believe that intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation. So let's say clearly what you mean: to be well educated you must be "informed about" ID. Is that what I mean? Well, thankfully, you're here to explain it... I bet McCain never says that, ever ... I mean they're kicking school boards out in that blue of blue states, Kansas for pushing ID. What's sad is that McCain is pandering, but God knows what you're doing. You may actually believe what you write. Let me be clear: I've seen the greatest minds of my generation and they don't know **** about Intelligent Design. Well, sure, but one really shouldn't hold that against a bunch of 10 year old kids, no matter how much smarter they are than you... |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On 13 Dec 2006 22:33:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:ans0o2tjpmnhntqmashl448skfu4b8k63s@ 4ax.com: But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is the way life came about is conducive to education, No, YOU believe that this is the way life came about, I do? And you arrived at this new untestable hypothesis expounded as truth how, exactly? and your absolute statement using the phrase "is" speaks well to your faith. Ah. No, it doesn't. The use of the _word_ "is" in the _phrase_ "it is" is completely accurate when describing the idea. The phrase nor its use speak to the writer's beliefs or faith. It would be the noun that would do that - i.e., if I had used the word "fact" rather than "idea," one might reasonably (but still possibly erroneously) guess that I personally believed it to be a fact. Others, in fact many others, don't believe this to be the case, and have a variety of hypothesis that all fall under the general class of "evolution". The hypotheses are close to, if not actually testable and demonstrable, are very consistent with current concepts of genetics, and none of them call for the precendent "and then a miracle occurred". For me, that last phrase really encompasses the difference between science and religion. All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why "evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above, acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap. R |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
Scott Seidman wrote: wrote in news:ans0o2tjpmnhntqmashl448skfu4b8k63s@ 4ax.com: But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is the way life came about is conducive to education, No, YOU believe that this is the way life came about, and your absolute statement using the phrase "is" speaks well to your faith. Now, now, Scott.....no need to resort to that sort of thing to beat up on a punching bag. dicklet may well believe that.....it would be thoroughly consistent with his perpetually demonstrated muddle-headeness.....if he had anything resembling beliefs at all.....but there is nothing in his sentence to support your contention. Best to just beat him up in the usual fashion. Others, in fact many others, don't believe this to be the case, and have a variety of hypothesis that all fall under the general class of "evolution". Here's a good place to use that much belabored word, "about." There are many theories "about" the mechanisms that drive evolution. Biological evolution itself is NOT theoretical. Biological evolution is a FACT! Moreover, it is just "about" the best documented and supported FACT in all of science. And what makes the whole continuing "debate" endlessly hilarious is that the first great proponent of the correct model got it right in all of its essential details on the very first try alomst a hundred-fifty years ago, and the vast majority on BOTH sides of the question STILL don't get it!! What could possibly be funnier?.......well, o.k., yeah, there's dicklet. :) The hypotheses are close to, if not actually testable and demonstrable, are very consistent with current concepts of genetics, Many hypothoses concerning evolutionary mechanisms are most assuredly testable.....and have been tested.....repeatedly.....and have passed brilliantly. and none of them call for the precendent "and then a miracle occurred". For me, that last phrase really encompasses the difference between science and religion. Oh, it's all miraculous enough. The trouble is that most folks don't understand what "miracle" means any more than they do "evolution." Wolfgang |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On 13 Dec 2006 14:22:51 -0800, "Conan The Librarian"
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:03:03 -0600, Conan The Librarian wrote: Ah, so because some hypothetical Joe Sixpack doesn't know who DeLay is, he magically is no longer a major player in American politics? See my reply to Joe - he was never a real player, at least not on his own. I said he was a "big name" on the right, and you said he wasn't. I said he was the majority leader of the house and you went into your song-and-dance about how Average Joe wouldn't know him. And if by "the right," you mean him and possibly some or all of the 100 or so suckers who subscribed to his blog, then yeah, he's probably still a real big name powerbroker stud. OTOH, if by "the right" you mean anyone else, then no, he's old news. I pointed out to you that equating whether Joe Average knows him to him being a political big name was irrelevant. So I'll point out that it's pretty hard to be a big name, political or otherwise, if most of those to whom you wish to be a big name don't know who you are and rest don't give a ****... And now you've changed the discussion once again to say that he's not a "major player .. on his own". Well of course not. He's a frontman for the Ridiculous Right. That's exactly the point; No, it isn't. The point is that he _was_ this, that, or the other, and now, he _isn't_ anything but a washed-up nobody...which is exactly what he deserves. he is a big name who is trotted out for things like re-districting (remember that?) and other "issues" where they need a sleazeball with no ethics or self-respect. Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_, and in politics, the difference is everything. HTH, but I doubt it. I know just how you feel, R |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@
4ax.com: All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why "evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above, acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html Microevolution is quite often tested and easily demonstrated. We can, in fact, easily synthesize evolution, and this happens all the time. Let's say I want E.coli to produce a certain protein. I can use genetic engineering techniques to splice the production of this protein into the bacteria, and make a colony that expresses this protein. Now, let's say I don't really understand this protein so good, but I do know that I want to change it in some testable way, like I would like the protein to work at a higher temperature than normal. Well, I could take the DNA from the little guys, and I could replicate it in a fashion guaranteed to introduce lots of fairly random errors in the copies. I'd whip up a bunch of these dirty copies, put them in some bacteria, and test the resulting proteins, if the production managed to survive. Then, I'd artificially introduce "survival" by making error-filled copies of that DNA that produced a protein that worked at a higher temp. I'd just keep doing this till I got what I wanted. This sort of artificial evolution is going on every day now. The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong theory. It falls within our current model. We have seen proteins, we have seen DNA, we have seen many the molecular events that are associated with sexual and asexual reproduction. We have seen mutation, and we have seen mutations passed on. All of this, and more, supports the theory of evolution. From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a theory that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'". We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian paradigm, if you will. To have intelligent design make sense, first we have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is. Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle. We'd have to throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based for centuries. The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach religion. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote:
Well, sure, but one really shouldn't hold that against a bunch of 10 year old kids, no matter how much smarter they are than you... But we should hold it against 'grown-ups' who ought to know the difference between theology and a sneaky end-run that tries to convert religious theology in to a science. They should know better. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Opus" wrote in : I'm not sure I agree with ya here Scott. I believe the courts said that "intelligent design" belonged on the shelves of comic book stores. Op I'm particularly sensitive to this issue. History of Science is a hobby of mine, and I teach it whenever there's an opportunity. You may or may not have misread my reply. I was serious too and I don't think many comic book stores consider their products works of science. Unless we're talking Marvel Comics. The Scientific Revolution (in the sense of the nickname of the 1450's- 1550's, not the Kuhnian sense) happened because scientists managed to shed the religious dogma that people like Aquinas managed to wrap around the Ptolemaic Universe, with its crystalline celestial spheres moving heavenly bodies in perfectly circular orbits around the earth. Even my scientific hero, Tycho Brahe (who I named my parrot after, cause his beak looks a little metallic), fell victim to this dogma, and supported a geocentric solar system. Read Brahe's wikipedia entry, if so inclined-- he was a real hoot). Parrot's who fall victim to religious dogma, now that's a hoot! Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it science. The enlightened do not. Too true. Op -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote in message ... R You know Rah, you really do yourself a disservice, when you try to compete intellectually with a true intellectual. I wouldn't confront Scott anymore, if I were you. It really makes you look even more the fool than usual. Seriously! Op |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
"Opus" wrote in :
You may or may not have misread my reply. I was serious too and I don't think many comic book stores consider their products works of science. Unless we're talking Marvel Comics. Wasn't really at you, Op, so much as just a convenient place to hit the reply button! I did have one of them super big comic books of the bible, though. I can't remember who made it. I had a Howard the Duck comic of the same size, and a race between Superman and the Flash (that ended in a tie, IIRC) -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote in message ... On 13 Dec 2006 12:51:13 -0800, "rb608" wrote: wrote: That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both, as well as about religion. By the way you phrase the statement, I infer you do not consider ID as religion? I don't, no, but I don't begrudge anyone who chooses to (peacefully) do so...and don't think ID is a satisfactory explanation of how life came to be. But I am able to reach that conclusion for myself because I know at least a smattering about the thinking behind ID. IMO, general "science" class (in the non-collegial, preparatory education, such as in a US lower, middle, or upper school) is as good a place as any to inform about it under the premise that it is an alternative theory to what is accepted as "science," but I don't feel that such instruction _must_ occur there. It isn't what I'd call accepted modern science, but neither is much of early (erroneous) "science" which is taught about as precursor information in the chain leading to current, accepted thought. I don't think "intelligent design" is the way life came about and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation, but I'm certainly aware of both, and I'd make sure my children were as well. If you don't think ID is the way life came about, why would you want it taught to your kids? Because if they aren't well-informed, they can't possibly make well-informed choices. There are lots of ideas that I don't personally embrace that I don't wish to be hidden from anyone, children included. And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as well-educated as possible, and many of those would truly believe that intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation. Many of those might believe the earth is flat; but that doesn't mean we should squander resources teaching it in school. Uh, yeah, "we" sure as heck wouldn't wanna squander resources teaching things in school...why, shoot, too much of that kinda nonsense, and before you know it, schools won't be able to afford new computers or something... IAC, just how do you "squander resources" by teaching about something in a school? In fact, how do you squander them teaching about anything, anywhere? I get it. It's like child molestation. Most of us know what it is and would never subject our children to such degenerate individuals with such perverse behaviors, but because you want you children to be well learned, you would actually introduce you children to a child molester and leave them with he/she over the day. Simple logic, the Rah Dean method of teaching about. Op |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
Scott Seidman wrote: "Wolfgang" wrote in : Actually, the story isn't quite that simple. The flat versus spherical debate (not to mention infinite variations) raged for a long time. It certainly IS true that most educated people knew a long time ago that the question had been settled, but it was by no means a dead issue as late as the mid-15th century......any more than evolution versus intelligent design is today. Washington Irving may have popularized the myth about Columbus, but many of the sailors aboard his vessels undoubtedly had serious concerns about this spherical Earth "theory." Incidentally, while Columbus was obviously right about the shape of the Earth, he was WAY wrong about its size (thus leading him to believe that he'd arrived at the East Indies).......which had been pretty accurately estimated by a number of folks centuries earlier. Wolfgang "Settled" might be an overstatement-- after all, we still have flat earthers today. Settled. Note that I said "educated people." Yeah, we have flat earthers.....and we have creationists.....and we have intelligent designers.....and we have dicklets and kennies and stevies. There do seem to be some historians that hold that the flat earth theorists were influential at the later Middle Ages, It doesn't just seem so. It is so. but most historians seem to agree that based upon a relative scarcity of traceable reference to a flat earth after about 800AD, the influence was marginal. The Church has not yet been marginalized. Would that it were so. As for Columbus, if he did in fact use a flat vs spherical Earth hypothesis to bilk Spain out of funds, it certainly wouldn't be the last time a scientist set up to disprove a straw horse to secure funding (but it might have been the first!) It would most certainly not have been the first.....not by a long shot. However, it doesn't seem likely that he did. I mean, why would he so much as hint at a discredited theory that predicted the certain failure of the enterprise he was trying to bankroll? Size was a different matter. I think that the Late Middle Age "natural philosophers" had a fair problem understanding scale, and the fact that people didn't understand that the distance of stars was so vast as to preclude parallax errors was responsible for geocentrism holding on as long as it did. Well, all of that is, again, only partly true. Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system as early as the third century BCE. Hipparchus, a century or so later, came up with a good estimate of the circumference of the Earth.....and the moon.....and the distance between them, relying heavily on information gleaned from eclipses, both solar and lunar. The ancient Greeks (as well as the later Arabs) were well aware of the implications of the terminator on the lunar surface. And, once again with the help of eclipses, they were able to extrapolate from those implications and deduce the shape of the Earth.* Astronomers and other natural philosophers in the late middle ages had varying access to a lot of this information and equally diverse opinions as to its validity and utility. Most of their problems stemmed from, or were at least greatly exacerbated by, official Church doctrine. Some things never change, it would appear. This isn't what gave Columbus problems, though. True. But then, I didn't suggest that it was. Indeed, his estimation of how far he travelled is remarkably accurate given his dead reckoning preference (see http://www.columbusnavigation.com/v1a.shtml). Stipulated. I don't need to follow the link. The problem was that he used Ptolemy's huge underestimation of circumference. Yeah, that's what I said, he was wrong about the size of the Earth. Almost 500 years before Ptolemy, Eratosthenes had an estimation of circumference to within 8%. O.k., you've got me there.....I didn't mention Eratosthenes specifically. While he preferred dead reckoning, Columbus also had a quadrant on board. I would think that a well developed technique for quadrant based navigation at Columbus' time would indicate a well developed sense of a spherical earth. Yep. But then, I didn't suggest that Columbus was wrong about the shape of the Earth. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. Wolfgang *and then there's the chinese, the mayans, the druids......and just about everybody else who figured it out a long long time ago. |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On 13 Dec 2006 23:40:22 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@ 4ax.com: All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why "evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above, acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong theory. Sorta like an "untestable" hypothesis that you've expounded as truth... We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian paradigm, if you will. I won't! I won't! Just because whoever "we" might include besides yourself haven't seen something is no impetus upon me to accept it as an absolute. Neither you or I (or anyone else) have seen evolution, either. Yet you choose to accept it as an absolute insofar as when compared to "intelligent design" while I choose to simply accept it as the most likely occurrence based on currently available information. To have intelligent design make sense, first we have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is. Again, whoever "we" might be could well be so encumbered. I'm not. While I don't have to consider some form of intelligent design or even "creation" as a "most likely" occurrence, I choose not to be so close-minded as to eliminate the merest possibility of it having occurred. And I'm certainly not going to let the fact that whoever the hell "we" might be, you, or anyone else hasn't personally witnessed something influence my thinking on that subject. Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle. No, "we" don't, and since of whom "our" consists is unknown, a statement regarding their "best concept" of anything is meaningless. IAC, religion and "God(s)" are not intertwined by definition, only by individual perception. It is entirely possible to be a religious atheist or believe in (a) "God" and have no religion. You are attempting to attack another's theory with your own perception of fact while simultaneously admitting that your "fact" isn't, in fact, _fact_. We'd have to No, "we'd" not have to do jack ****. throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based for centuries. Yet again, no, "we" wouldn't, but if evidence surfaces that indicates it needs to be thrown out, AFAIAC, out it goes. But I think you may wish to familiarize yourself more completely with Descartes. The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach religion. But you will pay them to teach Descartes, at least his work that you personally canonize...interesting...again, you may wish to become more familiar with his writings. HTH, R |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
Scott Seidman wrote: ... All of this, and more, supports the theory of evolution. No, no, no, no, NO! There is no "the theory of evolution"! There are multifarious theories concerning the mechanisms that drive biological evolution. That such evolution occurs is a demonstrated, incontovertible, and unassailable FACT! A billion years ago there were no dinosaurs. A hundred million years ago there WERE dinosaurs. Today there are no dinosaurs. A hundred million years ago there were no human beings. Today there ARE human beings. Species have come and gone. They continue to do so. That is a fact. That's it......it really IS that simple. From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a theory that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'".... Gould was wrong. Dead wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Scientific facts ARE absolutely certain....just like any other facts. What is NOT certain.....all too often.....is whether or not the assertion in question is indeed a fact. That determination is what science is about......and it does a damned fine job of it. Meanwhile, advocates of "creationsim" and "intelligent design" are in no material way any different than "flat earthers" and "phlogistonists." They deserve a great deal more contempt and derision than my meager lexical skills allow me to bestow on them. Treating them like adults that one can have a meanigful discussion with is a grave disservice not only to humanity, but to every other living thing on the planet as well. You should stop doing that. Wolfgang |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote: On 13 Dec 2006 23:40:22 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@ 4ax.com: All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why "evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above, acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong theory. Sorta like an "untestable" hypothesis that you've expounded as truth... We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian paradigm, if you will. I won't! I won't! Just because whoever "we" might include besides yourself haven't seen something is no impetus upon me to accept it as an absolute. Neither you or I (or anyone else) have seen evolution, either. Yet you choose to accept it as an absolute insofar as when compared to "intelligent design" while I choose to simply accept it as the most likely occurrence based on currently available information. To have intelligent design make sense, first we have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is. Again, whoever "we" might be could well be so encumbered. I'm not. While I don't have to consider some form of intelligent design or even "creation" as a "most likely" occurrence, I choose not to be so close-minded as to eliminate the merest possibility of it having occurred. And I'm certainly not going to let the fact that whoever the hell "we" might be, you, or anyone else hasn't personally witnessed something influence my thinking on that subject. Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle. No, "we" don't, and since of whom "our" consists is unknown, a statement regarding their "best concept" of anything is meaningless. IAC, religion and "God(s)" are not intertwined by definition, only by individual perception. It is entirely possible to be a religious atheist or believe in (a) "God" and have no religion. You are attempting to attack another's theory with your own perception of fact while simultaneously admitting that your "fact" isn't, in fact, _fact_. We'd have to No, "we'd" not have to do jack ****. throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based for centuries. Yet again, no, "we" wouldn't, but if evidence surfaces that indicates it needs to be thrown out, AFAIAC, out it goes. But I think you may wish to familiarize yourself more completely with Descartes. The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach religion. But you will pay them to teach Descartes, at least his work that you personally canonize...interesting...again, you may wish to become more familiar with his writings. Good God, you are stupid. Wolfgang |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote in message ... On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be universally agreed as "science." HTH, R Why is failing to teach ID in the schools anymore hiding the idea that it may be the way life came about anymore so than failing to teach any of the myriad other faith based explanations of the origin of life? Just because there may be more fundamentalists - who literally interpret those parts of the Bible that suit their mindset (but conviently ignore those that don't)- than there are say Navajos who believe in their version of the origin of life and humankind, does not make ID any more likely to be true than the Navajo belief. For that matter what makes it more likely to be true than even beliefs that are no longer espoused, such as those of the ancient Egyptians. Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:26:25 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be universally agreed as "science." HTH, R Why is failing to teach ID in the schools anymore hiding the idea that it may be the way life came about anymore so than failing to teach any of the myriad other faith based explanations of the origin of life? Who said it was, other than my position that it can't be "taught" as such? I don't suggest that _every_ conceivable topic need, or even could, be covered. My position is attempting to outlaw such subject matter from schools is an attempt at hiding it. Just because there may be more fundamentalists - who literally interpret those parts of the Bible that suit their mindset (but conviently ignore those that don't)- than there are say Navajos who believe in their version of the origin of life and humankind, does not make ID any more likely to be true than the Navajo belief. For that matter what makes it more likely to be true than even beliefs that are no longer espoused, such as those of the ancient Egyptians. The "truth" or likelihood of truth of any of those are not at issue. I don't suggest that _any_ idea, theory, belief, etc. be presented as an absolute fact, only that the information be presented in a factual, unbiased manner. IOW, inform kids that current scientific information indicates that evolution is by far and away the most likely accurate theory as to the origin of current life on Earth and of the reasoning behind that theory, but also inform them that many people currently believe in this origin or that origin, and in the past, many have believed this or that, and a general background of those beliefs, if known. And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what a great many of their contemporaries believe. Within the bounds of common sense, a proper education should include alternative sides of issues, and information should be readily available. What does within the bounds of common sense mean? Obviously, 14 year-olds shouldn't be taught (see how that works) such physically dangerous things as manufacturing explosives from household chemicals, illegal things such as identity theft or other electronic fraud techniques, or age-inappropriate things such as sexual techniques. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about chemistry, computers, and biology. R Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On 13 Dec 2006 20:16:27 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@ 4ax.com: That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both, as well as about religion. Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and about intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo dragging the sun across the sky with his chariot. The major things I find wrong with intelligent design are A: it implies a designer. Okay. Wouldn't that equate with a god or committee of gods? Spooky. And then there's B: where this intelligent design leads. Are we what it was supposed to lead to? The absolute best that this god / these gods could come up with over billions of years? Not very good at their work, in that case. Or do we have to pull back our egos and admit that there are stages and stages to go and we aren't the top of it all? I can't see most humans, much less the very religious who back intelligent design being willing to do that. I can't say I'm in favour of either A or B. I'll go with evolution for $50, Bob. -- r.bc: vixen Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc.. Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote in message ... Who said it was, other than my position that it can't be "taught" as such? I don't suggest that _every_ conceivable topic need, or even could, be covered. My position is attempting to outlaw such subject matter from schools is an attempt at hiding it. Okay, seriously, who said anyone was "outlawing" ID? The only thing that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones said was that the Dover, PA school board's attempt to "insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state." Additionally, "Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion." Furthermore, "the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago." Finally, "Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ So where does "outlawing" ID show up? The "truth" or likelihood of truth of any of those are not at issue. I don't suggest that _any_ idea, theory, belief, etc. be presented as an absolute fact, only that the information be presented in a factual, unbiased manner. IOW, inform kids that current scientific information indicates that evolution is by far and away the most likely accurate theory as to the origin of current life on Earth and of the reasoning behind that theory, but also inform them that many people currently believe in this origin or that origin, and in the past, many have believed this or that, and a general background of those beliefs, if known. Do you believe that all of these other beliefs should be taught in a science class? And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what a great many of their contemporaries believe. "Legal intervention" only occurred when a religiously biased school board attempted to refute science with a religious interpretation of how life came about. Within the bounds of common sense, a proper education should include alternative sides of issues, and information should be readily available. What does within the bounds of common sense mean? Obviously, 14 year-olds shouldn't be taught (see how that works) such physically dangerous things as manufacturing explosives from household chemicals, illegal things such as identity theft or other electronic fraud techniques, or age-inappropriate things such as sexual techniques. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about chemistry, computers, and biology. Yes, but that has nothing to do with the dicussion at hand. No one has said that ID couldn't be taught, only that it can't be taught within the context of science, as it is not a scientific theory, but a religious interepretation. Would you think it logical to suggest that students in a class teaching the religious aspects of creationism also have to study the theory of evolution, as part of that class? Example: The teacher say to the class, "today we will discuss the biblical story of creation in the chapter entitled. Genesis, and tomorrow we will discuss an alternative view of the creation of life, the theory of evolution." Op R Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote in message ... ...Is that what I mean? Well, thankfully, you're here to explain it... Starting from the admittedly magnanimous assumption that you have something to say and (even more generously) that it means something, SOMEBODY should explain it......and you are clearly incapable of doing so. Now, let me go way out on a limb here and suggest that you think I'm wrong about this. O.k......prove it. Seriously. Wolfgang emeril absinthe oprah emeril emeril latifah oprah |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote: is that he _was_ ... _isn't_ Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_, Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what the meaning of "is" is? Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation with all things Klintonian) Richard must be bored this week. No one in their right mind would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms unless they were running for office as a Republican, ie John McCain. Richard is not stupid, almost as pertinacious as Jeffie, contrarian to the point of absurdity, sure, but not stupid. I can only conclude he's having a bit of fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him, seriously on this. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: is that he _was_ ... _isn't_ Was, Chuck, _was_, not _is_, Doesn't it seem just a little ironic that you are arguing over what the meaning of "is" is? Chuck Vance (but then again, you do seem to have a pre-occupation with all things Klintonian) Richard must be bored this week. No one in their right mind would advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms unless they were running for office as a Republican, ie John McCain. Richard is not stupid, almost as pertinacious as Jeffie, contrarian to the point of absurdity, sure, but not stupid. I can only conclude he's having a bit of fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him, seriously on this. Good God, you are stupid. Wolfgang |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
"Wolfgang" wrote in
ups.com: From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a theory that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'".... Gould was wrong. Dead wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Scientific facts ARE absolutely certain....just like any other facts. What is NOT certain.....all too often.....is whether or not the assertion in question is indeed a fact. That determination is what science is about......and it does a damned fine job of it. I might be going against the grain, but scientific facts are just facts so long as they don't cause predictions that are so wrong that they tear down the Kuhnian paradigm. We don't "know" a thing about reality with 100% certainty, we just have a pretty good model of what's going on. We can only test hypothesis within that model. Aristotle thought he was right using his physical model with the five elements air, fire, earth, water, and aether. Indeed, using the tools available to him at the time, there weren't any huge inconsistencies in his model that caused him to throw the whole deal out. In some ways, to claim scientific certainty is an admission that there are no earth-shaking technologies in our future that will help us shed real light on the mysteries of the universe, and I find that more depressing then comforting--I'd rather give up on scientific certainty then abandon hope on a major natural philosophical surprise. Those physicists trying to develope a unification theory shouldn't pack it in just yet! Of course, none of the above is in any way a suggestion that we should begin teaching the paradigms of yesterday in pre-college curricula as if they were cutting edge science, making believe they solve mysteries which current science tells us are not mysteries. The other caveat worth discussing in this philosophical house of cards I'm living in is that it gives bad scientists the opportunity to claim that the wrong conclusions they reach are just the next logical Kuhnian Revolution-- and that we must abandon our current "good" model and adopt their replacement, even though nobody else sees the inconsistencies in the good model. I think there's alot of this going on in the Intelligent Design debate (though I have trouble acknowledging it as a debate). -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
Scott Seidman typed:
snip You and I have contemporaries in this world that fully believe they are spending their lives gathering karma, which will directly impact upon their reincarnation and/or enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable time in the science classroom instructing the students in how to avoid spending their next life as a centipede. Perhaps we should?? By golly, you may have just revealed the path to the next anti-drug program. "Just say 'No'" was a non-starter and "Officer DARE" is certainly pabulum, but "DO YOU WANT TO LIVE YOUR NEXT LIFE AS A CENTIPEDE?" has wings, IMHO. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
"Tim J." wrote in
: Scott Seidman typed: snip You and I have contemporaries in this world that fully believe they are spending their lives gathering karma, which will directly impact upon their reincarnation and/or enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable time in the science classroom instructing the students in how to avoid spending their next life as a centipede. Perhaps we should?? By golly, you may have just revealed the path to the next anti-drug program. "Just say 'No'" was a non-starter and "Officer DARE" is certainly pabulum, but "DO YOU WANT TO LIVE YOUR NEXT LIFE AS A CENTIPEDE?" has wings, IMHO. This gets better. Perhaps the Intelligent Designer would actually build a centipede with wings! The Unification Hypothesis unfolds. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him, seriously on this. I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one? Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot (IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers, insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath. YMMV, of course. Joe F. |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I can only conclude he's having a bit of fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him, seriously on this. I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one? Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot (IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers, insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath. YMMV, of course. My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in our public schools, that's gotta be just a troll. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message et... rb608 wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: I can only conclude he's having a bit of fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him, seriously on this. I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one? Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot (IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers, insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath. YMMV, of course. My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in our public schools, that's gotta be just a troll. Not surprisingly, you miss the point entirely. dicklet has seen to it that whether he is serious or trolling or whatever is as irrelevant as it is uninteresting. Like you, he has made himself into a plaything. That's o.k......the world needs more cheap, amusing, and unbreakable toys. Wolfgang |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:28 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: rb608 wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: I can only conclude he's having a bit of fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him, seriously on this. I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one? Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot (IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers, insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath. YMMV, of course. My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in our public schools, And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does? It's not like he said he thinks it should.be even suggested that it is science. IMO, what he said was that he thought that kids should be informed about it as an alternative theory that some believe in, so as to have as full an understanding as possible about the subject, and that he had no problem with that information being disseminated in a "science" class. I'd bet he'd not have a problem with a little history creeping into a science class, or a little science creeping into a history class, either. Why, hell, I'd go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure that he wouldn't find reason to object if, on occasion, kids discussed the spring dance decorations in GASP! math class... that's gotta be just a troll. Um, perhaps it would be, if it had occurred. And yet again, the fact that some people have readily and willingly jumped to all sorts of erroneous conclusions based upon their misinterpretation of what they didn't understand when they misread what they are absolutely sure was written, while arguing with the writer that they know more about what the writer meant than the writer, pretty well relegates the use of or need for trolling per se to the occasional side diversion aimed at particularly cocksure types. Oh, the use of "he" rather than "me?" He just didn't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion by switching pronouns, in case you guys were close to a breakthrough on determining what he meant or something...here's a wild thought - if you come to a conclusion, maybe you could run it by him, you know, just to get some feedback, sorta-like... HTH, him |
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
|
Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:28 GMT, Ken Fortenberry wrote: rb608 wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: I can only conclude he's having a bit of fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him, seriously on this. I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one? Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot (IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers, insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath. YMMV, of course. My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in our public schools, And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does? It's not like he said he thinks it should.be even suggested that it is science. IMO, what he said was that he thought that kids should be informed about it as an alternative theory that some believe in, so as to have as full an understanding as possible about the subject, and that he had no problem with that information being disseminated in a "science" class. I'd bet he'd not have a problem with a little history creeping into a science class, or a little science creeping into a history class, either. Why, hell, I'd go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure that he wouldn't find reason to object if, on occasion, kids discussed the spring dance decorations in GASP! math class... that's gotta be just a troll. Um, perhaps it would be, if it had occurred. And yet again, the fact that some people have readily and willingly jumped to all sorts of erroneous conclusions based upon their misinterpretation of what they didn't understand when they misread what they are absolutely sure was written, while arguing with the writer that they know more about what the writer meant than the writer, pretty well relegates the use of or need for trolling per se to the occasional side diversion aimed at particularly cocksure types. Oh, the use of "he" rather than "me?" He just didn't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion by switching pronouns, in case you guys were close to a breakthrough on determining what he meant or something...here's a wild thought - if you come to a conclusion, maybe you could run it by him, you know, just to get some feedback, sorta-like... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Wolfgang |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter