Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 23 Oct 2006 16:39 On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:03 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Why not start listening to and watching the BBC >> >>>? >> >> >> >> I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which >> >> slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they >> >> are taking that day. >> > >> >Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please? >> >> Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start. > >You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ? > > >Graham http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45336.aspx John
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 16:49 T Wake wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > news:a4ioj2hb7thtg4gl99sh7mas1fnmddbt6i(a)4ax.com... > >>On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:27:01 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>>IT and computers are a science field. >>>> >>>>Only as a misnomer. >>> >>>Since when was electronics not a field of science ? >>> >>>Graham >>> >> >>Electronics is a technology. Electrical engineers build things, they >>don't research the workings of nature. Some academic EEs pretend to be >>scientists. >> >>Almost all the sciences use electronics to manage, measure, and record >>experiments. It's remarkable how little science can now be done >>without electronics, the exception being theoretical work, but even >>that is tested and validated - or not - with electronics. Electronics >>has become an indispensable tool of science, like mathematics. >>Strange. > > > Not strange. Separating them is (IMHO) strange. Electronics is a practical > implementation of science. Why force them into different categories? The reason is obvious, otherwise *everything* could be categorized as part of science.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 16:51 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Except start wars. >>>>>> >>>>>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >>>>> >>>>>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >>>> >>>>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >>> >>> >>>Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the >>>Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. >> >>Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of >>understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? > > > > Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is > prohibited, not permitted. Precisely. So everything which is not prohibited is permitted, exactly as I wrote.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 16:59 John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:42:53 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > > >>John Larkin wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>In article <8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com>, >>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>> >>>>Well, there was an Onion story... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>> >>>>So your rejection of evolution makes you more Islam than Christian? >>> >>> >>>I don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that >>>evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more >>>complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute >>>is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As >>>such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well >>>developed science. >> >>The same statement can be made with great validity about any >>of the sciences. > > > Most of the other sciences produce theories that work quantitatively > to some goodly number of decimal points, and can be tested > experimentally, and that have difficulty quantitatively explaining > only extreme situations. Evolution is essentially qualitative, and > only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution > in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way. Let's examine one tidbit, the one I was addressing. "evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well developed science." We know only a tiny fragment of the totality of eventually available knowledge, irregardless how many decimel poinnts of accuracy we can muster for the relatively few bits of understanding we have. snip
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 12:15
In article <vb4qj29r3tpr4ctnhbffuumsdgpj704mf8(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:42:53 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com>, >>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>> >>>>Well, there was an Onion story... >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>> >>>>So your rejection of evolution makes you more Islam than Christian? >>> >>> >>> I don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that >>> evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more >>> complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute >>> is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As >>> such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well >>> developed science. >> >>The same statement can be made with great validity about any >>of the sciences. > >Most of the other sciences produce theories that work quantitatively >to some goodly number of decimal points, Big Bang. Formation of black holes. What the center of the earth is like. > and can be tested >experimentally, and that have difficulty quantitatively explaining >only extreme situations. Evolution is essentially qualitative, and >only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution >in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way. Biology is a qualitative science. > >There's all sorts of interesting stuff. Some people are born with six >fully functional fingers on each hand. So "finger" must be some sort >of parameterized macro, and "mirror image" must be an operation, and >there must be some sort of installation crew that hooks everything up >so that it all works. > >Aircraft parts were classicly identified by drawing number and dash >number. If a part were, say, 123456-1A (the basic part defined by >drawing 123456 rev A), it was automatically assumed that 123456-2A was >its mirror image. > >John > |