Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 07:53 In article <X5KdncZfhOmVpafYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehd506$8qk_005(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <LKydnafehvClGavYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eh54ge$8qk_011(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>> > to >>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>>> > the >>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> radio >>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>>> bit >>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >>>>>> they >>>>>> know >>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they >>>>>> had >>>>>> no >>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>> >>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>> >>>> Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>> guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>> >>>> Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory >>>> and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their >>>> kids present evolution as a belief; >>> >>>These teachers should be fired. >> >> They are if they don't preach the Bible, too. > >If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If >Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be fired. > >>> >>>> the implication of this >>>> is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute >>>> the religion known as evolution for the religion of God. >>> >>>Only in the mind of fundamentalists. >> >> You need to listen more. > >Stop being so patronising and read what I wrote. > >> CSPAN aired some convention that >> was to talk about this issue. Science teacher after science >> teacher, who did not want to give Bible lessons in their classes, >> kept using the language of "...I believe in evolution." >> >> Any fundamentalist will interpret this as the teacher substituting >> evolution for Christain religious belief. Plus it is a useful >> way to get public schools funds to hold their Sunday School clasess. > >Like I said, only in the mind of fundamentalists. If you spent less time >trying to be patronising and imagining half the conversation you would be >able to appreciate what I actually wrote. > >Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that the Creed starts out with "I believe...". > If someone reads that >as saying "I believe in evolution THEREFORE I cant believe in the Bible" >that is the fallacy. It is not a fallacy. There are only three things in their list that are to be believed. Adding evolution to that list is heresy. The word belief implies faith that passes all understanding. This means that no evidence is required. No evidence has no place in the science lab. <snip deliberate disingenuousness> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 07:58 In article <p2glj292d915vbpvtc9fg80nkglu3fu5rl(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:02:34 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:mp3lj29e2fch9vi7q41flhjd983pcrh6de(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >>Nothing wrong with this, with the exception of a Biology teacher who starts >>to teach the kids the wrong Spanish grammar - which is more appropriate to >>the examples. Teaching ID as science is bad science. > >ID isn't bad science or good science. It's faith. Perhaps you don't >understand faith. <snip> I might as well write up my nitpik :-). A logical first step of the Scientific Method is to identify what can be studied using the Method and what cannot be studied using the Method. One of the things that cannot be studied is anything that requires faith. /BAH
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 09:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfl72$8qk_002(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <1161446216.247073.137760(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <1161181426.078024.31230(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>[....] >>> >Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven >>> >these days is virgin wrangler. >>> >>> Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction, >> >>It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an >>obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed. > <snip> > > This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to > convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb. And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed. >>> I would assume >>> that this would actully be hell for males. >> >>You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't also be for females. > > There is not. Now, think about that in combination with the tactics > that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media. Stop being so patronising and trying to be vague. Say what you think. Your assumed interpretation of Heaven is not the same as the one put forward by Islam. "There is not" makes no sense. >> >>> I wish people >>> would think a little bit more. >> >>So do I but I've learned to live with the fact that others simply can't >>keep up with my thinking, humor and artistic skills. This is the curse >>of being the smartest person in the world. > > You don't even approach the smartest. You certainly aren't any > where near as smart as the person known as JMF in my login name. Your sense of humour is failing rapidly.
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 09:07 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfllq$8qk_005(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed >>>>>>>> > is >>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> radio >>>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who >>>>>>> reckon >>> they >>>>>>> know >>>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant >>>>>>> they >>> had >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>> >>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>> >>>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>> >>>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>>> >>> >>> I'm not going to deal with this one. >> >>So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? > > It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread. > If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was > important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept > is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik. Then nitpick it. You are correct that if it was important some one else could deal with it. Do you think you are the only rational reader in this thread and that you have to pass judgement on other people's posts?
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 08:04
In article <453A2959.8CD5152D(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > the implication of this >> >> > is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute >> >> > the religion known as evolution for the religion of God. >> >> >> >> Only in the mind of fundamentalists. >> > >> >Maybe they're afraid ppl will see that science disproves God ? That's what >> >happened to me actually in a rather amusing way. >> >> Then you were not taught the Scientific Method...or rather, >> you did not learn the Scientific Method. > >I learnt that ppl weigh more than air. > >My 'Bible Teacher' tried to teach that the ascension was real. I pointed out >that humans can't rise up to heaven because they weigh too much. She said they >could so I knew thereafter that Christian teaching was based on lies ( aged ~ >9 ) . You didn't have a clever Sunday School teacher. We had it beat into our heads that, with God, all things are possible. Thus, only God can make anti gravity. YOu also weren't clever enough to really stymie the most intelligent of your instructors. For instance, there wasn't any answer to my question about the pastor breaking the commandment to not labor on the Lord's Day. This was the lesson where we were getting taught that buying gas, thus making the gas attendant work, was a sin. /BAH |