"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

I can't see how it isn't.

OK. then we'll just have to disagree

As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who knows
what science is...

Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the population.

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the scientific
method.

"WolfRat" wrote in message ...
Martin Hotze wrote:
Andreus schrieb:
I was astounded that Iowa would accept Obama as a candidate who happened to be black,
instead of as a black candidate. Perhaps the US does believe it can evolve.

Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half supersede the white half
in America?

Because bigoted beliefs put it in everyone's mind that if you had the least detectable
trace of black ancestry, you were not white. You were black, period. Even an octaroon
(1/8 black) trying to act as a white was "passing" and not really white.

I don't get it. The attitude is like the black genes are superior to the white genes

You still don't get it if you can make that kind of statement.

Tiger Woods is half Asian but the left wing media slobbers
over him also like he is all black.

See previous comment on who is "black" and who is "white" - it applies to any other
background if you're of black heritage.

I just don't get it. I also resent Obama "hiding" and "ignoring" his white blood. I
guarantee when he arrives in the deep South that attitude will not play worth a damn.

He's not hiding it, just taking political advantage of his black ancestry.

"Kissing the Black Ass" is an epidemic in America

You're a vector for spreading the Cracker Bigot Prejudice Syndrome.

"John Mazor" wrote in
news:iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

I can't see how it isn't.

OK. then we'll just have to disagree

As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
knows what science is...

Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
population.

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles
of the scientific method.


No need to burn books when nobody reads em anyway...


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"John Mazor" wrote in
news:iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

I can't see how it isn't.

OK. then we'll just have to disagree

As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
knows what science is...

Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the population.

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles
of the scientific method.

No need to burn books when nobody reads em anyway...

I hadn't thought about it that way but you're right. Somebody tell Ray Bradbury to talk
to his agent about his "Fahrenheit 451" novel. It's been moved from the "cautionary tale"
section to the "redundant fantasy" shelf.

Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge


That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
it is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as
has been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates?

If they can't tell the difference between science and religion, they don't
qualify for any position that has to make decisions based in science.

Neil

"John Mazor" wrote in
news:wSbgj.954$hS.331@trnddc08:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"John Mazor" wrote in
news:iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

I can't see how it isn't.

OK. then we'll just have to disagree

As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
knows what science is...

Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
population.

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
principles of the scientific method.

No need to burn books when nobody reads em anyway...

I hadn't thought about it that way but you're right. Somebody tell
Ray Bradbury to talk to his agent about his "Fahrenheit 451" novel.
It's been moved from the "cautionary tale" section to the "redundant
fantasy" shelf.


Yep.

Bertie

Recently, Matt Whiting posted:

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge

That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
it is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as
has been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.

Refutation of prior hypotheses based on testing, new evidence, previously
inaccessible data, etc. *is* the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses
represent the state of the current level of empirical knowledge on a
topic, not necessarily ultimate truth.

Neil

Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

I can't see how it isn't.

OK. then we'll just have to disagree

As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who knows
what science is...

Neil

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

The way I look at it is that science can be useful for trying to explain
and predict the real world around us. For hundreds of years Newtonian
physics provided a pretty good model of the real world and useful for
making predictions about how things would work. Scientific evidence
today shows that Newtonian physics is incomplete for certain
environments. Who knows what other limitations of our understanding exist?

The limits to our understanding are infinite - which is precisely why the scientific
method never claims to have discovered "the unalterable truth" on any matter. It compiles
evidence and tries to make sense of it with hypotheses leading to structured theory sets.
Whenever a scientist says "here's the science" he's essentially betting on the best horse
in the running (or horses, if there are convincing alternate theories in the race).
Because of Occam's Razor, science doesn't like to bet on the long shots, such as the
possibility of ID. Many horses can be - and eventually will be - knocked out of the
running, but that doesn't mean that at any given moment there won't be an acknowledged
front-runner in a race that never will reach a finish line.

Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine the theory of
evolution, but it's just a version of requiring science to prove a negative. "Science was
mistaken about Newtonian mechanics governing all motion, so now prove that its rejection
of ID isn't also wrong." Using that same principle, I can posit that we are surrounded by
invisible aliens from Zygorthia who are getting their kicks by being responsible for
everything bad that happens on earth (including TWA800, for those of you who remember that
set-to with the conspiracy theorists). The alternate or null theory, that they don't
exist, is well supported by hypotheses and data, so it supports a rejection of my theory.
But science can never disprove my theory. After all, they may really be there and we just
haven't discovered the means to detect them yet, just as "ID is/may be true, we just
haven't yet discovered the means to prove it".

For anyone who demands that ID be taught in science classes, I demand equal billing for my
theory that Zygorthians, and not the devil, are responsible for all the evil in the world.

Martin Hotze wrote:
WolfRat schrieb:

Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half
supersede the white half in America?

I have to admit that living in an area with little to no people of other
races I might be not representative and got it wrong. Seeing Obama on TV
(and without checking his or other people's website on him) I got the
impression that he is black. Sorry for the ignorance or better sorry for
not getting *all* the information.

#m

His Mother is white
His so called Father a.k.a. sperm donor is black

He was raised by his white GRANDPARENTS

BUT?!?!? he denies his white roots and hides his white
relatives. Notice how when on stage you NEVER see his white
heritage?

He is a SCAM and LIE and MEDIA Darling/CLOWN

No wonder he is leading in the polls so many of the American
people have been dumbed down and made to think using FEDERAL
control of school curriculum and left wing San Francisco
media/ad companies that white is bad and not cool anymore.
They think Black is the next best thing to GOD. If a White
person speaks out about the media bias and mind programming
they are automatically a racist and bigot and DEMONIZED and
belittled. It's all HORSE **** and a SCAM

America has become retarded and clueless and is being turned
into a mongoloid nation and converted to 3rd world status
using our own media and entertainment.

Look at this

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3137506.ece

I know this is an aviation site but if America continues to
fall and allow politicians and the media to BULL**** us and
become more STUPID we will be riding bicycles soon.

Flying planes will be a luxury for the VERY rich ONLY

No wonder OBAMA is leading the Democrats. 30 years of
Education control by Washington D.C. has produced a
huge STUPID AMERICAN FAT LAZY MONGOLOID populace.

America the year I was born was 1st in Education in the
WORLD. Now America is 20th just ahead of Mexico and Greece.

Federal control of Education is no doubt been a MISERABLE
failure but hey, the politicians don't give a rat's ass.
It's easier to CON a STUPID populace. Now I am back to Obama.

Wanna keep flying? Watch this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173