Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:37 In article <ehd4lp$8qk_003(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eh5f79$8b4$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eh54ge$8qk_011(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> 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. >>> >>>Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory >>>and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their >>>kids present evolution as a belief; >> >>It isn't. It's taught in science class as a scientific fact, which it is. > >Wow. This one was easy. YOu just demonstrated what I wrote. > ><snip> > >/BAH Do you consider gravity similarly a "belief" and not a fact?
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:37 In article <ehd506$8qk_005(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. > >> >>> 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. 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." > Do you believe in gravity? >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. > >/BAH >
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:50 In article <ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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...". > So? "I believe this sample contains NaCl" is perfectly valid, as it would be based on knowledge, tests, analysis, etc. "Believe" isn't exclusively a word for theology. >> 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. No it doesn't. From dictionary.com: American Heritage dictionary: v. tr. 1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories? 2. To credit with veracity: I believe you. 3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly. v. intr. 1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith. 2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem. 3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech. 4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe. Only 1 of them (v. intr. 1) is religious. >This means that no evidence is required. No evidence has no >place in the science lab. ><snip deliberate disingenuousness> > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:51 In article <ehfndt$8qk_013(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <453A5164.754CBC24(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> Eeyore wrote: >>> >>> > The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post >>> > war. Quite simple really. >>> > >>> > Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or >>> > any insurgents. >>> >>> And of course you faithfully believe Saddam's historical >>> records as being accurate and true! Bwahahahahahaha >> >>The figures for the pre-war era encountered by the group tally with CIA >>figures ! > >What era? And there aren't death certificates for those >in hidden mass graves. So any person asked about people >they know who died couldn't have shown a certificate. >This person who disappeared could have been reported by >10 households. Do you not see a problem in collected >unique datums? > >/BAH So if anything, the prewar deaths are over-reported, since you're relying on people to tell you, and for post-war deaths, you have death certificates.
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:54
In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >>If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better >>be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational >>sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history >>of science. > >It is not. Yes it is. It the cornerstone for biology, in the way atoms are for chemistry. >The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and >especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant. OK, lie #1 >There >is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution. Lie #2 >Nobody >actually understands how DNA works. We don't understand quantum theory either, but the sun shines and your computer works. >Evolution, and especially its >mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day, >but not yet. You are lying. > >If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're >right. > >John > > Idiot. |