Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

On 14 Dec 2006 10:12:33 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does?

Because he said:

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.

HTH,

Oh, it does, it does...perhaps you could continue to be helpful and
point out the part in the above that contains what you interpret as
saying that ID should be "taught as science" in public/private schools
or anywhere else.

On the edge of his seat,
him

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"rb608" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
perhaps you could continue to be helpful and
point out the part in the above that contains what you interpret as
saying that ID should be "taught as science" in public/private schools
or anywhere else.

"...kids should be informed about it as an alternative theory..."
"...that information being disseminated in a "science" class."

Of course, you're free pretend I have a reading disability, or that I
just don't understand your meaning; but "disseminating information"
about Creationism as an alternate theory in a science class doesn't
pass the Lemon test IMO.

Joe F.

Ya know it's really sad. Rah Dean is a TROLL pure and simple, yet he get as
much attention here as a newbie with a serious question.

I'll not be tormented by him again, I tell ya!

Op --though he is the cutest little ****-maggot in all of Usenet--

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

rb608 wrote:
wrote:
perhaps you could continue to be helpful and
point out the part in the above that contains what you interpret as
saying that ID should be "taught as science" in public/private schools
or anywhere else.

"...kids should be informed about it as an alternative theory..."
"...that information being disseminated in a "science" class."

Of course, you're free pretend I have a reading disability, or that I
just don't understand your meaning; but "disseminating information"
about Creationism as an alternate theory in a science class doesn't
pass the Lemon test IMO.

I think Richard is having a McCain Moment of cognitive dissonance
and is trying to figure out how to explain McCain's being in favor
of teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms
while at the same time insisting that McCain isn't a simpering,
pandering, business-as-usual, Republican ****-weasel who will say
anything to anybody and endorse any harebrained nonsense in order
to get elected. Poor Richard tosses up these silly trial balloons
on roff's basketball court of public opinion only to have every
shot stuffed back into his face. Gawd, I love this place. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"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.

In other words, there is no such thing as a fact.

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.

Yeah, everybody thinks he or she is right. It is impossible not to. And
they're all right.....except when they're wrong. In the former instance,
what they have hold of is facts. In the latter, it is something else.
Aristotle was wrong. We KNOW that he was wrong. In other words, it is a
FACT that he was wrong......it is a scientific certainty.....nicht wahr?

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,

Nonsense, pure and simple. Claiming certainty ("scientific" or otherwise)
is not an admission of anything in any way.....and most definitely not of
anything that will or will not happen in the future. You are not only
suggesting that there is no such thing as a fact, you are also expressing a
fervent hope that there never will be. This is not merely anti-scientific,
it is also fundamentally anti-intellectual.

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.

I'd rather give up chocolate than have monsters come up out of the toilet at
night and pinch my toes......and you're prepared to accept this as proof
that there is no such thing as chocolate?

Those
physicists trying to develope a unification theory shouldn't pack it in
just yet!

And just a moment ago you were suggesting that they should, else they might
someday come up with a genuine scientific certainty and thus wreck
everything for you.

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.

Of course. But that's because none of it bears on that issue at all.

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.

Poor Thomas Kuhn; he writes a beautiful and powerful description and
everybody thinks it's prescription and prediction.

Bad scientists, like mountebanks and idiots of any stripe, will never lack
opportunities. Even the existence of facts doesn't slow them down.

I think there's alot of this going on in the
Intelligent Design debate

The existence of a debate about "intelligent design" is an indictment
against everyone who participates in it, regardless of stance.

(though I have trouble acknowledging it as a
debate).

And yet you engage dicklets.

Wolfgang
who is pretty certain that we know more about the nature of the universe
today than our ancestors did a few centuries ago......and is completely
bewildered as to how people think this is possible in the complete absence
of facts.

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

Aristotle was wrong. We KNOW that he was wrong. In other words, it
is a FACT that he was wrong......it is a scientific
certainty.....nicht wahr?


Yes, but keep in mind that Aristotle and his contemporaries did not know he
was wrong, and held many of his major assumptions as fact. So, where does
that leave us? Maybe there are facts, but we just can't verify them as
such, or some of them will prove wrong?

Push comes to shove, we don't really understand why mass is attracted to
mass, which really puts our model of just about everything floating on
quicksand.

Its somewhat likely that when the Unification theory really starts to gel,
some of what we currently hold as scientific fact will prove wrong as well.
Will the scientist of the fourth millenium AD be snickering while reading
our tomes espousing that light can behave as both a particle and a wave?

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

Aristotle was wrong. We KNOW that he was wrong. In other words, it
is a FACT that he was wrong......it is a scientific
certainty.....nicht wahr?


Yes, but keep in mind that Aristotle and his contemporaries did not know
he
was wrong, and held many of his major assumptions as fact. So, where does
that leave us?

That leaves us well ahead of Aristotle and his supporters......past and
present.

Maybe there are facts,

There are, and you know it. Epistomological gymnastics may be amusing for
their own sake but they really don't add much to discussions on other
matters.

but we just can't verify them as
such,

Fact: the book sitting on the desk in front of me is smaller than the
building it resides in. Exactly what sort of extraordinary verification do
you think we NEED here?

or some of them will prove wrong?

Facts cannot be proved wrong. Facts are right......by definition.

Push comes to shove, we don't really understand why mass is attracted to
mass,

That's a fact.

which really puts our model of just about everything floating on
quicksand.

That's bull****.

Its somewhat likely that when the Unification theory really starts to gel,
some of what we currently hold as scientific fact will prove wrong as
well.

Qualify that satement with "if" rather than "when" and it's a fact.

Will the scientist of the fourth millenium AD be snickering while reading
our tomes espousing that light can behave as both a particle and a wave?

Don't know......but she'll sure get a chuckle out of this "discussion" if
she runs across it. Would that I could say the same for myself; this is
getting boring real fast.

Wolfgang

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:35:42 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rb608 wrote:
wrote:
perhaps you could continue to be helpful and
point out the part in the above that contains what you interpret as
saying that ID should be "taught as science" in public/private schools
or anywhere else.

"...kids should be informed about it as an alternative theory..."
"...that information being disseminated in a "science" class."

Of course, you're free pretend I have a reading disability, or that I
just don't understand your meaning; but "disseminating information"
about Creationism as an alternate theory in a science class doesn't
pass the Lemon test IMO.

I think Richard is having a McCain Moment of cognitive dissonance
and is trying to figure out how to explain McCain's being in favor
of teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms
while at the same time insisting that McCain isn't a simpering,
pandering, business-as-usual, Republican ****-weasel who will say
anything to anybody and endorse any harebrained nonsense in order
to get elected. Poor Richard tosses up these silly trial balloons
on roff's basketball court of public opinion only to have every
shot stuffed back into his face. Gawd, I love this place. ;-)

You really weren't supposed to notice...

/daytripper (...but ironically, there's no reason to care, either ;-)

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

On 14 Dec 2006 11:07:26 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
perhaps you could continue to be helpful and
point out the part in the above that contains what you interpret as
saying that ID should be "taught as science" in public/private schools
or anywhere else.

"...kids should be informed about it as an alternative theory..."
"...that information being disseminated in a "science" class."

Of course, you're free pretend I have a reading disability, or that I
just don't understand your meaning;

Why would I need to pretend that you don't understand my meaning when
you repeatedly demonstrate it?

but "disseminating information"
about Creationism as an alternate theory in a science class doesn't
pass the Lemon test IMO.

IMO, you need to do a whole lot more study on and about US
Constitutional theory and the role of stare decisis in modern US
codified law. Lemon speaks to the prohibition of
Constitutionally-subordinate statutes that mandate or allow religious
instruction in or of a particular religion in taxpayer-funded schools.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with merely informing students about
topics with components that include broad "religious" aspects. It would
be Constitutionally permissible (in the US) to instruct students in such
schools that Christianity and Islam have origins in Judaism. It would
not be Constitutionally permissible (in the US) to attempt to teach them
that whichever is the "correct" religion.

IAC, what in your model should happen if a student asks about it?

R

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

On 14 Dec 2006 21:26:47 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:shb3o29781s74tg5mh9nclt0h9bre6u409@
4ax.com:

IAC, what in your model should happen if a student asks about it?


Depends on if you're tenured or not! If a student asks about ID in a
science class, I'd explain that it was my opinion that its a school of
thought which attempts to reconcile the religious dogma surrounding
Creation with the well understood and widely accepted concept of evolution,
and suggest that evolution does not need devine help to work.

Andy?

IAC, you've disseminated information. So what's the big deal in simply
informing a class in that same general way, without the bias of the last
sentence, and providing them with outside sources that (fairly) support
and refute ID should they desire more information?

And as an aside, one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.

R

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:

I have no trouble teaching children these beliefs in the proper context,
which is in a framework of comparative religion, social studies, or history
of science. I have tremendous issues with teaching faith as science.

Most of this thread isn't showing up on my server, so this
is the best jumping in point that I could find.

Philosophers do not find the foundations of science and faith
all that different. Science has shown itself spectacularly
capable of declaring "truths" it later shows are false, and
thus science is as much founded on _belief_ as faith is.

This isn't true in the slightest. Science is always attempting
to find and understand the "truth". Religion claims to simply
know the "truth". Science can be wrong and in fact openly
acknowledges it's uncertainty. What gets taught in science
is the current state of our knowledge.

I've never understood how any decent scientist can follow
organized religion. They seem to be mutually exclusive ways
of thinking.

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

" wrote in
oups.com:

I've never understood how any decent scientist can follow
organized religion. They seem to be mutually exclusive ways
of thinking.




You would have loved to see the Dalai Lama speaking at the Society for
Neuroscience meeting a couple of years back.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

wrote:
And as an aside, one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Why isn't it likely? Seems about as likely/unlikely as any other
scenario.
- Ken

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:

I have no trouble teaching children these beliefs in the proper context,
which is in a framework of comparative religion, social studies, or history
of science. I have tremendous issues with teaching faith as science.

Most of this thread isn't showing up on my server, so this
is the best jumping in point that I could find.

Philosophers do not find the foundations of science and faith
all that different.

Oh goody, yet another scientist heard from!

O.k., I'll play.

Which philosphers would those be? References to specific editions and
pages of their works would be MOST helpful. Oh, and next time you talk
to them, ask them for me, please, whether their faith alone is
sufficient to get a 747 off the ground or does it take the combined
thrust and lift of all the passengers on the plain......um.....and
maybe some of the ground crew, too?

Science has shown itself spectacularly
capable of declaring "truths" it later shows are false,

Hopeless to point it out, I'm sure, but that's the point.....the key
difference. To put it another way, that's how you know it's
science.....not faith.

and
thus science is as much founded on _belief_ as faith is.

No. And thus science is self-correcting while faith, being perfect to
begin with, never needs correction.

Sure,
I _believe_ science is making much progress in discovering
objective truth(*), but the next scientific revolution might
shatter my notions of scientific "fact".

Thus demonstrating that you have no notion whatsoever of what the words
"believe", "science", "progress", "discovering", "objective", "truth",
"scientific", "revolution", or "facts" mean. Congratulations, even for
ROFF, that's a LOT to confess in one sentence.

Understanding what is
NOT scientifically knowable is just as important as understanding
what is...

Does that sort of make you feel like you've got an awful lot of
catching up to do? It should.

Jon.
(*): Stating that there even _is_ objective truth is yet
another belief. The existence or not of objective truth is
one of those things not scientifically knowable.

O.k., yes, your repeated assertions that ontological masturbation feels
good must be taken at face value.....but, no, it is NOT something you
should demonstrate to the neighbors' children.

Wolfgang

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

wrote:

...I've never understood how any decent scientist can follow
organized religion.

I believe you.

They seem to be mutually exclusive ways of thinking.

Yes.....they would......to the simple-minded.

Wolfgang
hey stevie! tells us again about them
whattyacallit.....solisp.....slopis....sopils..... .oh, you know!
:)

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

On 14 Dec 2006 14:18:54 -0800, "
wrote:


wrote:
And as an aside, one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Why isn't it likely? Seems about as likely/unlikely as any other
scenario.

Oh, sweet Jesus' mother on a mule...this isn't gonna involve Greek
letters and gameshow hosts, is it?

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

On 14 Dec 2006 22:02:08 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:fkg3o219u3noj1nvijphq6ellcr3cdja5i@
4ax.com:

And as an aside, one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.



Isn't that a real school of religious thought-- that there is a God, but we
don't need to care, as he's not gonna be giving us a hand?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. IAC, as for me, I don't think
God, real or otherwise, is what gives people help. It's their faith
that does it...or really, really doesn't...

HTH,
R

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in news:1166135753.116029.105550
@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Which philosphers would those be?


Not many modern ones, to be sure, but wouldn't this almost be a definition
of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, esp. the Quinquae Viae (Or is that the
harpoon guy with facial tattoos in Moby Dick?)

I'd also throw in a bunch of Natural Philosophers of the Neoplatonist
schools of thought. Let's say Hermes Trimestigus, for example (largely
because I really like saying "Trimestigus"). This school brought us
wonderful "sciences", such as alchemy, and kabbalism, and IIRC, wonderful
things like anatomy and embryology came out of the Neoplatist tradition of
learning through experiencing God. I think even Vesalius threw in with
these guys.

It's a legitimate argument that up until around Darwin, there was always a
component of science that specialized in defining man with relation to God.
Science and religion
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

wrote:
......one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.

AAAAAHHHHH!

You wait.....and you wait.....and you wait......and sometimes it never
comes.

But when it does....!!!!

Wolfgang
and some of you people STILL think this **** for brains is just a
troll?!! :)

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:


I have no trouble teaching children these beliefs in the proper context,
which is in a framework of comparative religion, social studies, or history
of science. I have tremendous issues with teaching faith as science.


Most of this thread isn't showing up on my server, so this
is the best jumping in point that I could find.

Philosophers do not find the foundations of science and faith
all that different. Science has shown itself spectacularly
capable of declaring "truths" it later shows are false, and
thus science is as much founded on _belief_ as faith is. Sure,
I _believe_ science is making much progress in discovering
objective truth(*), but the next scientific revolution might
shatter my notions of scientific "fact". Understanding what is
NOT scientifically knowable is just as important as understanding
what is...

Jon.
(*): Stating that there even _is_ objective truth is yet
another belief. The existence or not of objective truth is
one of those things not scientifically knowable.


ok...much more of this **** and i'm cutting my wrists with occam's
razor... :)

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ps.com...

Wolfgang
and some of you people STILL think this **** for brains is just a
troll?!! :)

And yet hear you are! :~^ )

Op --the TROLL seer--

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

In article ,
says...
wrote in news:r2l3o25414livafcuqmim430el4mqeupiv@
4ax.com:

God, real or otherwise

Of course, all us Fortran guys know God is real, unless specifically
declared integer.


Unless you are a polytheist, in which case God is an array.

Kevin

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

Opus wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ps.com...

Wolfgang
and some of you people STILL think this **** for brains is just a
troll?!! :)

And yet hear you are! :~^ )

Op --the TROLL seer--

Second best show in town......see my new thread. :)

Wolfgang
and both are still free free free!

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ps.com...

Opus wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ps.com...

Wolfgang
and some of you people STILL think this **** for brains is just a
troll?!! :)

And yet hear you are! :~^ )

Op --the TROLL seer--

Second best show in town......see my new thread. :)

Wolfgang
and both are still free free free!

Sadly, since we lost the War Between the States, we don't have a North down
here in the South. :~^ (

Op

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:50:25 -0500, jeff
wrote:



ok...much more of this **** and i'm cutting my wrists with occam's
razor... :)


Wouldn't work. Occam was so Catholic he once accused the pope of
being a heretic for not going to vows of poverty. Occam wouldn't let
his razor assist you in suicide.
--

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?
 

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:22:57 -0600, Kevin Vang wrote:

In article ,
says...
wrote in news:r2l3o25414livafcuqmim430el4mqeupiv@
4ax.com:

God, real or otherwise

Of course, all us Fortran guys know God is real, unless specifically
declared integer.


Unless you are a polytheist, in which case God is an array.

When I was writing FORTRAN in grad school I thought God (and/or the Devil) was a
tensor.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

sufficient to get a 747 off the ground or does it take the combined

Ahh yes, a perfect example of generations of kids learning
the wrong "facts" in science class...

Huh? 747s don't fly?

Well, I be go ta hell!

Wolfgang
??