Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 17:14 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:mev_g.14873$GR.11146(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:29e96$453a4272$49ecfae$4310(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>> Jesus was the son of God (Part of God if you belive in the holy >>> trinity). He gave his life rather than kill. This is the basic tenet of >>> early Christianity. It was modified significantly over the next three to >>> nine hundred years until by the end of the first millenium, Christianity >>> was a war like religion which appealed to the Scandinavians. >> >>T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can: > > Proof, please. > Unsettled doesn't need proof when rumour and lies will suffice much better.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 17:16 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:qYu_g.14865$GR.6938(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:C-ydnUWDRbUIpqfYnZ2dnUVZ8tWdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > >> Who ever morphed into "unsettled" > [snip] > > That's an interesting supposition. I've been thinking this unsettled > clown is some sort of unearthly love child of JoeBloe and that Michael > Terrell fellow, only with less ability to reason. You might have it here. I haven't see JoeBloe post for a while so it could be him - I don't know about Terrell as his posts got to the stage of such pointless drivel I had to kill file him.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 17:19 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >> never show any statistical significance. > > Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of > their data than *you* are, since your understanding of statistics is > essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed > the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad > more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? When BAH posted this, it struck me as a massive example of how really closed minded some people can be. She hasn't read the data, she has no idea about the methods, she doesn't know who reviewed it (etc), yet she does know that bad data will spoil stats (which is true). She has taken the one thing she does know and assumed it to be the case because the answer is not one she wants. Amazing that BAH claims to have any scientific background at all.
From: John Larkin on 21 Oct 2006 17:32 On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:10:34 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:69lkj218m8l6errb5fr0lnsb658moc7s8o(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:08:55 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If >>>Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be fired. >> >> Right, keep all things in their rigid compartments where God intended >> they stay. > >Interesting argument. You create the fallacy that supporting the separation >of subjects into discrete categories for the education of children is >actually supporting the doctrine of Christianity. Nicely done. > >I assume then, that you feel Biology teachers should spend their time >teaching their student Spanish, If the teacher has a couple of Spanish-background kids in class, it would be appropriate to mention the Spanish names for things, or comment on critters that live in the kids' home countries. > while the Gym teacher covers Mathematics. Certainly the mention of mechanical advantage, momentum, friction, things like that could be very useful in sports. Why select a light or heavy bat? How does a curve ball work? What's the best way to throw a football? That could create a lot more interest in physics than sitting in a classroom grinding out equations. >While we are at it, why have job titles at all. Why don't we all just be "do >what you wanters." Why don't we all know and think about a little more than our specialty? Must an English teacher be deliberately ignorant of science? Must an engineering professor be uninterested in History? > >Hmm. Sounds familiar. > Depressingly so. Crossing disciplines can result in great revelations, but a lot of people refuse to do it. No problem, I'll do it for you. John
From: Jamie on 21 Oct 2006 20:53
Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems >>>>to have been a lot of myth. What a waste of learning time. >>> >>>Now stop to think what else might be based on popular myths ? >> >>One of them is that Europe doesn't teach history their kids any >>better than the US. > > > Eh ? I assume English isn't your first language. > > Graham > Graham, lost for comment? is that the best you can do ? I like viewing debates posted by intellectual people, it makes for better reading. Statements like that tend to bore me to no end. Can't you be more created ? My neck is sore from falling asleep due to all the boring bile you're spewing out, your last statement only shows more of your true nature. -------------------------------------------------------- My views and comments, are directed to the very few that have been posting here lately. I hope the wrong parties don't take offense to my statement. The one's guilty of this, know who they are. Born, raised, taught in the USA and proud of it! :) -- "I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 |