Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Oct 2006 06:39 In article <7676e$453e0156$4fe763b$982(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: > Jeez, man, TRIM! Good example. Here's one I like as well. Nowhere in the US Constitution is the USG permitted to go into the forest and timber business. Yet here we are today with some huge national forests from which the USG sells of timber from time to time. However, USG is not prohibited from such activity in the constitution. You could say Article IV, section 3 allows that: "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States..."
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Oct 2006 06:27 In article <k4uqj2tih5dpatici8qeesbi8otu4gp5p1(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:11:09 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >>Whether or not models are correct is not important to us. >>What is important that they provide accurately predictive >>tools for us to use. > >Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools? >Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are >somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about >macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past >creations at this level "predictable" after the fact? Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system. > >I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under >our eyes. > >John >
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Oct 2006 06:26 In article <2a253$453d5fe4$49ecf83$29717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:856de$453d290d$49ed52d$28493(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>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. >> >> >> You need to brush up on your propositional logic. "A implies B" is not the >> same as "(not A) implies (not B)". > >If you bothered to actually read the US Constitution, >including Ammendments, you might actually understand >and stop relying on what you think it might be about. >It is online for free access. > >The Constitution is known world wide not as an >enabling document, but a document which restricts the >power that the government may exercise. The direction >of the verbiage is not of concequence. Some of the >Amendments are written in a positive context, for >example Amendment 6, but what is clear in content, >interpretation, and practice, is that it forbids >prolonged incarceration and a bunch of other evils >exercised by other nations. > >Therefore, all which is not prohibited is permitted. > Depends. Sometimes the language is very general (provide for the general welfare) and it's almost like that. But not always. The president, for example, could not let his wife veto bills, even though the constitution doesn't prohibit that.
From: Daniel Mandic on 24 Oct 2006 11:19 John Larkin wrote: > What's strange is how pervasive it is. Hardly any hard science > research can be done without a bunch of electronics instrumentation. > We have almost no other ways to accurately measure and record physical > phenomena. Any physics, chemistry, or even biology lab is usually > dominated with electronic gear, optimistically all calibrated, > connected, and being used properly. > > I'm not complaining. > > John You are a poor computer nation! Surely the fastest and sometimes the Best, but stucked, stucked into climatic calculations and forecastings, you poker-magicians. In Religion you are 200Y behind. In technic you stumble on the restless reminds of the WWII. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: John Larkin on 24 Oct 2006 11:58
>>>> 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. >>> >> >>I find physicists to be especially aggressive. > >Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient. "That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later that it can work. > >>It's hard to brainstorm >>with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it >>down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something >>there. > >That's only way to design something. We wouldn't have gotten anything >done if we didn't slap each new idean and tear it apart. But ideas, even bad ideas, can be played with and sometimes that leads to ideas that are not bad. If you squash the process at step #1, it ends there. > >> Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics >>than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers... >>check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the >>RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now. > >The physics biz is not a production line activity. It is their >job to fiddle and tweak until it works. Then the mess gets >handed over to engineers; it is their job to figure out how >to manufacture the thingie without having to reproduce the >bandaging steps. > > >> >>The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological >>physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot >>of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can >>reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry >>and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as >>brutally competitive. >> >>Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new >>most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics >>without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc. > ><grin> You should try working with people who are doing engineering >work with a thinking style trained to do physics. > Now *that* is an interesting concept. Elaborate? John |