If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
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 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
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 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"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. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"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 |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"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? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"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!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots" | Skylune | Piloting | 28 | October 16th 06 05:40 AM |
Dispelling the Myth: Hillary Clinton and the Purple Heart | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 21st 06 05:41 AM |
Desktop Wallpaper - "The "Hanoi Taxi"". | T. & D. Gregor, Sr. | Simulators | 0 | December 31st 05 06:59 PM |