Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 12:08 On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:58:34 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. > Of course. Faith consists of beleiving something to be probably true when there is - at present - no means to test the belief. Given such a situation, like the origin of life or the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness, it seems to me that all reasonable conjectures should be equally respected. I think that most scientists, and especially amateurs who take pride in being "scientific", are too quick to reject conjectures that they find to be emotionally unappealing. That's all. John
From: MooseFET on 22 Oct 2006 12:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. I disagree. The funniest humor is always about the most serious subject. There is an evolutionary explaination for why this is so, but even without the explanation, it is obvious from experience that it is true. God, death and people being unfaithful are the normal grist for jokes. > >> 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. Huh! The reply to the above make no sense. What does the "there" refer to? You are saying something is not something but neither referent is identified. > Now, think about that in combination with the tactics > that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media. Since the thing I'm supposed to think about in combination with those tactics makes no sense, I can't figure out what you are suggesting I think about. That being said, you can't assume that I haven't already thought about it. > >> 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. You also have missed the real meaning of what I said. I'm sure others knew exactly what I meant. I don't feel like explaining it to you at this point, but trust me, your responce doesn't make you look very good.
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 12:22 On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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...". > >It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >better description. > >Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? Strawman indeed. Since the time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors to math and science. I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates science, and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science. John
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 12:23 On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:27:05 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >IT and computers are a science field. > What does programming have to do with science? John
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 14:42
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>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. >> > > So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect." Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect. > Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to > watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. All topics have conferences like that. |