@farmerman,
Let alone "looking from a different perspective from that of your limited horizons." What is this. An art class? Or philosophy? PSXXX has a fatal misunderstanding of what science is in the first place. I would rather discuss the subject with the real Pope rather than our phony Pope.
@farmerman,
Quote:When you come up with anything original and even witty, lemme know by holding up the APPLAUSE sign.
You were very witty, although not very scientific, when you attempted to belittle my high standing in rjb's "Pick-Um" competition half way through the season.
Well--I not only won the WEEK, awesome has been said of that, but I also topped the table at the wire.
Winners can laugh, losers can suit themselves. So YAWN all you want. I hope you gently pat your hand rhythmically against your lips as you do so as we have no wish to be given an eyeful of your gaping maw.
It's a pity you once again failed to address the post beyond saying that the "other sciences" are not science. It's a great subject for a speech at one of the seats of The Higher Learning. You would have to explain of course at places like that. If you don't know that you must not have had so much contact with such standards. Just asserting your conclusion is as bad as taking a dive in the first.
@Lightwizard,
Quote:I would rather discuss the subject with the real Pope rather than our phony Pope.
I'm surprised you have the choice Wiz. One might rather do many things in a fantasy than in real life. I would rather discuss interest rates with the Chairman of the Fed than with the chaps in the pub, for example.
I'd rather discuss corsets with ladies of refinement and renown than with fork truck drivers and road menders. Even football.
And if I'm not the actual Pope the word "phony" is un-necessary and, as such, mere padding to allow you to hold forth for longer and even longer if it's drawled. Like fm drawled YAWN. He wasn't actually yawning mind you. That was a little porky, in rhyming slang, and one of his B&Q toolkit for when he's stumped.
@spendius,
Quote: It's a pity you once again failed to address the post beyond saying that the "other sciences" are not science.
You attempt to lecture others of what the Scientific method does, but you have no clue of what you speak. Youve contradicted yourself, I dont need to pursue any farther.
As far as your little Fooball pool, how nice. Am I to be in awe? I understand the "sockpickers" and "the line" and appreciate the difference between the two. (One is for money and the other for internet fun and games) .Dont make too much of it. As Mr Littlefield says'Its only a game"
@farmerman,
We can observe how spendi spends his daily efforts, and what is important to him in his "life." We must have some sympathy for his pathetic life.
I've reduced anti-IDers to babbling nonsense.
Pavlow demonstrated that beasts know the scientific method.
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I've reduced anti-IDers to babbling nonsense.
Pavlow demonstrated that beasts know the scientific method.
You try to reduce us to your level, but it ain't possible.
@edgarblythe,
I wouldn't come on a thread to witter like the last four anti-ID posters have just done. And crap wittering it was too.
@spendius,
Mere trash talk, as in sports.
@spendius,
ACtually, you take witterance to new levels of "splunge"
@edgarblythe,
You lot have some room to talk Ed about "trash talk".
Check the anti-ID responses to my earlier posts if you want to see some trash talk.
fresco wrote-
Quote:"Agnosticism" becomes vacuous when that point is understood.
Darwin claimed he was an agnostic. And fresco is an atheist.
Thus an atheist says Darwin was "vacuous". I wouldn't go that far.
@farmerman,
Take the last two pages of this thread to any scientist you might know fm and ask him who is doing the wittering. Avoid literary professors though. They will just laugh at you.
You four have not a scientific bone in your bodies. It's all a pose to try to justify certain types of immorality. You've been shredded goodstyle.
I am inclined to think that you can't even read.
@spendius,
spendi, As proof, you have shown that you have no idea what science is about; it has absolutely nothing to do with morality.
@cicerone imposter,
When have I shown that I have no idea what science is about?
I said you lot haven't and that you just use the word science and a few word formations out of certain simple books written for simpletons as a battering ram to promote socialist causes. Communist causes as well.
Science can be used to promote immorality. It can also be used to promote morality and beneficial social consequences if the sciences of human behaviour are taken into account. Or even common sense.
@spendius,
Wiz wrote this tangle of drivel--
Quote:It's the mentality of those insisting on ID/Creationist to be taught alongside evolution sciences in schools. It's the backward fundamentalism of the churches in Texas which, obviously, makes them backward in more ways than one. Cowboys don't want no schools?
When challenged to say who was "insisting" he had no response other than more drivel.
I might have asked "backward" at what? Houston and Dallas don't look that backward to me. Cowboys didn't build those.
Quote:With large universities systems coupled with initiatives like the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, a wide array of different high tech industries have developed in Texas. The Austin area is nicknamed the "Silicon Hills" and the north Dallas area the "Silicon Prairie". Texas has the headquarters of many high technology companies, such as Dell, Inc., Texas Instruments, Perot Systems, AT&T and Electronic Data Systems (EDS).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (NASA JSC) located in Southeast Houston, sits as the crown jewel of Texas's aeronautics industry. Fort Worth hosts both Lockheed Martin's Aeronautics division and Bell Helicopter Textron. Lockheed builds the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the largest Western fighter program, and its successor, the F-35 Lightning II in Fort Worth.
Backward my arse. Wiz is backward and obviously can't handle company that isn't. He must be habituated to spouting the drivel I quoted above and it being accepted on his say so. A huddle of gumps.
@spendius,
spendi, You seem to have a huge problem with the English language. Definition (Webster): "insisting - 1. To stand or rest; to find support; -- with in, on, or upon. [R.]
2. To take a stand and refuse to give way; to hold to something firmly or determinedly;
to be persistent, urgent, or pressing; to persist in demanding; -- followed by on, upon, or that; as, he insisted on these conditions; he insisted on going at once; he insists that he must have money. [1913 Webster]
From US News:
Quote:U.S. News Debate: Should Schools Teach Creationism?
February 06, 2009 03:09 PM ET | Dan Gilgoff | Permanent Link | Print
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
Charles Darwin turns 200 next week. Or he would have if, well, you know . . . .
To mark his birthday, U.S. News's opinion section has posted an intriguing debate over whether public schools ought to be in the creationism-teaching business.
Here's a taste, from the pro side:
During this last campaign, the topic of science"specifically, creationism and evolution"was pushed out onto the stage of the presidential debates. So much so that USA Today/Gallup released the results of a poll in which 66 percent of Americans stated that they believe in creationism. Not some hybrid theory mixing creationism and evolution. Not intelligent design. But specifically that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." Which is pretty much how the book of Genesis explains creation.
The debate is generating loads of comments and court cases across the US.
@cicerone imposter,
So??!!
I asked Wiz to name someone significant who is insisting on teaching ID/Creationism in science classes.
He hasn't done. After being asked twice.
What does that elementary school lesson have to do with Wiz's manifest straw man. Which is some etherial being he imagines exists in order to pot it on the porch rail with a shotgun. It must float his boat. It's trolling though.
It isn't all that much different from your straw man, or one of them, that I have a huge problem with the English Language assuming you mean that critically and are admonishing me.
If I assumed you knew, and were conscious of the fact, that the more one knows about the English Language, as with any subject actually, the bigger the problems become, I would read it as a gracious compliment. Huge is then going a bit far as I am a mere dilettante in the matter.
But one needs a scientific mind to understand that and you haven't got one, unless you did mean it as a compliment in that way, which I doubt, and thus the case is proved. Slam dunk.
Here is where spendi splatters all over the pavement like a soft turd. Charging that we four only accept the facts of evolution in order to push immorality - Not a one of the pro science posters on this thread can be successfully labeled 'immoral.' It's just one more throw the dog in the wind and hope it flies tactic. A desperate, pathetic, ploy, to pull the focus away from the topic.
I thought TWA* was no longer with us, but obviously throughout this forum from the start and previous threads, many famous people have advocated teaching ID/Creationism in schoosl:
From the Washington Post:
By Peter Baker and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
These comments drew sharp criticism yesterday from opponents of the theory, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it.
ad_icon
Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review.
The White House said yesterday that Bush's comments were in keeping with positions dating to his Texas governorship, but aides say they could not recall him addressing the issue before as president. His remarks heartened conservatives who have been asking school boards and legislatures to teach students that there are gaps in evolutionary theory and explain that life's complexity is evidence of a guiding hand.
"With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase," said Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. "It's not some backwater view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans."
John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution," he said.
Opponents of intelligent design, which a Kansas professor once called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," say there is no legitimate debate. They see the case increasingly as a political battle that threatens to weaken science teaching in a nation whose students already are lagging.
"It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a leading liberal lawmaker. Noting Bush's Ivy League education, Frank said, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."
Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.
Bush gave no sign that he intended to wade that far into the debate. The issue came up only when a reporter from the Knight Ridder news service asked him about it; participants said the president did not seem especially eager to be asked. "Very interesting question," he told the reporter playfully.
End of article
That was world-wide news on the API and Reuters.
* TWS Trolls With Alzheimers
Cowboys didn't build Houston and Dallas? What ignorance of US history. Most of the population still believe they are "cowboys," that's why they name a football team "The Cowboys." Idiot.
