"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Bob,

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

I can't see how it isn't.

If the theory is incorrect, then denying it is not anti-science at all.



Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
too?


It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
least if they're supposed to be good ones.

No argument here. The trouble is that much of today's science is based
on some very false assumptions made by Darwin and others.

Matt

John Mazor wrote:
"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.

And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a few
decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
"scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
science in our lifetimes.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and
Mt. St. Helens


Care to point us to a source?

Dr. Steven Austin, who received his doctorate from Penn State. He
conducted much of the research on the area at and around Mount St.
Helens after the eruption.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm


And some interesting information regarding the formation of the Grand
Canyon.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dr...aig-the-grand-
canyon/
2848553338


Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth.
There is simply NO debate about that in the scientific community.
I'll admit there is a debate about it well outside the scientific
community, but pretty much exclusively in the US.

Of course it won't as the mainstream scientific community has
preconceived ideas and fits their "data" to their ideas rather than
their ideas to the actual data.



No, they don;t, and you've just firmly planted yourelf in the k00k bin.


Bertie

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

John Mazor wrote:
"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.

And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a
few decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
"scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
science in our lifetimes.


No it won't. Even if they are wrong, it won't mean a thing to scientific
method, k00kie boi.

Bertie

Matt Whiting wrote in news:stggj.1382$2n4.31374
@news1.epix.net:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Bob,

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

I can't see how it isn't.

If the theory is incorrect, then denying it is not anti-science at all.


Yes, it is.




Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
too?


It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
least if they're supposed to be good ones.

No argument here. The trouble is that much of today's science is based
on some very false assumptions made by Darwin and others.


Prove it.


Bertie

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens

Care to point us to a source?

Dr. Steven Austin, who received his doctorate from Penn State. He conducted much of the
research on the area at and around Mount St. Helens after the eruption.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm

You know where it is going right from the opening blurb - pretentious religious rot
masquerading as science.

He has taken the outcomes of limited, rare catastrophic events and claimed that this
disproves the well-accepted theorems about topological formation under every variety of
more common circumstances. That's like saying that the forward movement of an aircraft in
a vacuum doesn't create lift, therefore the whole theory of lift is wrong. Or claiming
that the fact that we can create diamonds from carbon in hours means that the ones found
thousands of feet below the surface were created in an eyeblink by divine intervention and
not through the commonly accepted scientific explanation.

Even if he's partially correct about some things, revising the conventional explanations
about those specific events doesn't mean that the whole topological house now comes
tumbling down, taking evolution down with it.

And as we know from the various conspiracy groups, having a PhD doesn't prevent you from
being a blinkered fool.

And some interesting information regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dr...yon/2848553338

More of the same bogus "scientific conclusions" from the same moron. Dickering over
details when either view is consistent with or irrelevant to the overarching theory
doesn't even come close to disproving the theory.

Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth. There is simply NO
debate about that in the scientific community. I'll admit there is a debate about it
well outside the scientific community, but pretty much exclusively in the US.

Of course it won't as the mainstream scientific community has preconceived ideas and
fits their "data" to their ideas rather than their ideas to the actual data.

Damn straight. I can't get even one lousy media story to alert the public to the fact
that we are surrounded by invisible Zygorthians who are the true cause of all evil on
Earth. And I can show them as an incontrovertible fact that there is absolutely *no* data
that can disprove my theory - but do you think that the media is going to take note of
that or even care about the implications? No, they're stuck in their preconceived notions
about this, too.

"Jay Honeck" wrote

The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.

Really?

I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude behind it.

I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball bearing and
nails around their body over the top of several pounds of plastic explosive.
I don't see them targeting their own countrymen with assault rifles and
grenade launchers. I have yet to hear them preach death to all unbelievers.

I have yet to see a car full of religious right Americans drive up to a
police checkpoint, in the middle of a market crowded with men, women and
children, guilt only of being hungry, only to have their body parts spread
over a city block, when the fanatics explode several artillery shells in
their car.

Really Jay, I understand your reservations and fear about fanatical
Christians, but to compare the two groups is totally un-American, I think.
You know better than to have that kind of knee jerk reaction.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote

The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.

Really?

I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude
behind it.

I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
bearing and nails around their body over the top of several pounds of
plastic explosive.

Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.



Bertie

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

The trouble is that much of today's science is based on some very false assumptions made
by Darwin and others.

How so?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

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

And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those who claim to be
scientists.

Wrong, see below.

This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the global warming, er,
global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback
to science in our lifetimes.

Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable scientists claim that
increased global warming to catastrophic levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit to
the usual caveats of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a small
minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science reporting is
notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific statements way beyond the
scientist's actual views. We need to see it in their own published material or equally
reliable sources.

A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the lines
of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global warming,
that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be contributing to this,
and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life on Earth. While
alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining all the observed
data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often scientists are guilty of
not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume that everyone understands the
full but unspoken context of their announcements. But even when they do provide the full
context, it seldom is included in the media accounts because it's not as sexy as some
version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"