Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Oct 2006 07:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains? > > > >Lucas & Wake have trouble nustering a single correctly > >functioning neuron between them. > > I realize that. It a serious problem and you should be very > worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming > the politcally correct way to think. Actually it's simply rational thinking as opposed to the lunacy you're in love with. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:59 In article <k4uqj2tih5dpatici8qeesbi8otu4gp5p1(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: <snip> > >I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under >our eyes. Ah-choo! [emoticon picks nose] Yep. /BAH
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 08:05 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >> >>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some >>one >>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in the >>scientific method. > > No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. > I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's > how science works. I know how science works. We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your understanding of what you are observing. A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new (sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens we [tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. That is how science works. >> >>You believe that the experiments you have carried out are valid tests of >>the >>theory. >> >>Belief is a prevalent concept and the religious extremists should not be >>allowed to hijack it for their own use. > > Belief, as you use the word here, stops at the hypothesis step > in the Scientific Method. When I demonstrate a reproducible > aspect of physical science, I can then use that aspect as a > building block for new stuff. Because you *believe* in the validity of the scientific method. Science is not mathematics and scientific "proofs" are very, very different to mathematical ones. History is replete with scientific "facts" which were later falsified by experiment or new theory. A theory is only valid until someone falsifies it. This requires some level of belief, whether or not you wish to admit this. > This work process is not unlike the operating system history > of the computing biz. It started out using machine language. > Eventually, assemblers were written to create more complex > code tricks. Then compilers were written so that one didn't have > to worry about how the underlying hardware worked. Because every one assumes (believes) it just works that way. >>>>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? >>> >>> When you try to make a religious creed out of science, yes. And >>> they will do everything they can to prevent their kids from getting >>> exposed to the Devil's words. >> >>Who is trying to make a religious creed out of science? The Religious >>Right >>seem to be trying it as much as anyone else (eg. Dawkins). > > I tried to explain. Apparently I was using Martian when I wrote > that one up. As usual. <snip>
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 07:06 In article <ehilc2$rv0$11(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (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 article <1161169073.347610.229970(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>>> >>>>The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only >>>>the US government knows how to make these things. >>> >>> >>> >>>>They >>>>seem to believe that only the US government can OK >>>>all chemical invoices. >>> >>> >>>>Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again. >>> >>>>Our business and politics do not >>>>work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by >>>>this because their businesses are generally government >>>>controlled. >>> >>>A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic. >> >>Not the labor. Labor is union. >>> > >So? Takes both capital and labor to make anything. Besides, you said >"government controlled." > >>>>and/or union controlled >>> >>>Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what a >>>radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New >England. >>> >>>>espeically in the >>>>manufacturing and mining areas. >>>> >>>>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? Yes. The purpose of the Constitution was to give very limited powers to the Federation, keeping all the rest within each state. > >>That was written that way so that the states didn't war >>among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law >>rather than killing fields. The people who met at >>the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through >>the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in. <snip> >And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties? Name one so we have something concrete to talk about. Note that Bush needs Congressional approval for what he does do. So I want you to name one liberty that Bush, the person, has removed. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 07:09
In article <48c%g.19686$6S3.1431(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <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)". > And unsettled was talking about C. /BAH |