|
Home > Archive > Hepatitis disease > March 2006 > Deal struck on US anti-terror law
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Deal struck on US anti-terror law
|
|
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4699564.stm
US Congress members have reached agreement with the Bush administration to
extend the life of a controversial anti-terrorist law.
The Patriot Act was enacted soon after the 9/11 attacks and gives the US
government powers to monitor people deemed to be terrorist suspects. (You!)
Critics argue that it is intrusive and infringes on civil liberties.
Famously, critics argued that the act allowed investigators access to medical
records, and even to know what books an individual might be checking out of the
library.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4699564.stm
Dayum! I hope that none of you have ever checked out the "CIA Handbook on
Brainwashing Techniques", like I did once about 20 years ago, that's if they
haven't already removed it, or you will be right at the top of their list.
Hey, we all know how much *neat* and *tidy* people like putting people on their
lists.
*snigger*
Lord Cerne Abbas
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary!
"Nemesis, winged one that tips the scales of life,
dark-eyed goddess, daughter of Justice,
you restrain the futile pride of mortals with your unyielding bridle and,
hating hurtful vanity, destroy black envy: below your wheel, always
moving but leaving no trace, the fortune of man turns.
Unseen, you come at once to defeat arrogance;
by your hand you gauge the span of life, and, frowning,
you scrutinize the thoughts of men, you always hold the balance.
Be merciful, hallowed judge, winged Nemesis, life's force.
We honor you, Nemesis, immortal goddess,
victory incarnate with wings unfurled, faultless,
sharing the throne of Justice; you resent human vanity
and banish men to Tartarus below"
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/identity.html
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/mylinks.html
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
| |
| Imperial_Leader 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
|
In article with msg ID:
<memo.20060211134838.680C@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>, Alan,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk took the time to etch the
following into Usenet History:
>URGENT: DEFEND SCIENCE IN OHIO
>
>Ohio is the next front in the religious right's war on science.
>
>Next Tuesday, February 14, the Ohio Board of education will vote on stripping
>language from the state's science standards to allow the teaching of intelligent
>design.
>
>Take action! Tell the Ohio Board of education to stop intelligent design and
>defend science.
Are they going to stop teaching evolution? No.
Leftist Fascists must never allow dissent! The people of Ohio must
never be allowed to decide what they teach their own children.
Those children belong to the State!! We are the State!! We the
unelected guardians of Leftist Fascism!!
And before you start, XXXXnozzle, the people elected their leaders.
The right of the people to think for themselves must be quashed!!
One People, One Idealogy, One Leader!!
--
Damn I need a sig.
| |
|
| In article <11Feb20060812@lart.com>, Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com
(Imperial_Leader) wrote:
>
> In article with msg ID:
> <memo.20060211134838.680C@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>, Alan,
> alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk took the time to etch the
> following into Usenet History:
>
>
>
> stripping >language from the state's science standards to allow the teaching
> of intelligent >design.
>
> Are they going to stop teaching evolution? No.
You sit here in a science newsgroup and come up with this crap?
Science is science and should be taught in a science class. Religion is religion
and should be taught in a religion class.
Intelligent design is not science; it is religion. What part of that does a
dumbXXXX, who posts to a *science* newsgroup, not understand?
Don't give me this left wing/right wing crap! It is a question of do you teach
children *SCIENCE* or watered-down science to suit people of a particular
religous viewpoint.
Hey, and I see all these web-sites *whining* about how immigrants are stealing
poor widdle American's jobs. Yea Right! If I was an employer running a science
based business who would I employ? Some clutz who has learned watered-down
science, or a proper scientist?
Do us a favour and *get* *real*
Alan
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/enigma.html
http://veloceraptor.blogspot.com/
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
| |
| Imperial_Leader 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
|
In article with msg ID:
<memo.20060211145803.680F@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>, Alan,
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk took the time to etch the
following into Usenet History:
>Wow! 39%? That is almost 40%. About the same number who voted Nu Labour. i.e.
>DumXXXX *Lefties* who expect that state to support them.
>
Also the same number who voted for Clinton first time around.
He didn`e even get 50% in his second election.
--
Damn I need a sig.
| |
|
| In article <11Feb20060812@lart.com>, posted 11 Feb 2006 14:19:03
GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
>
>In article with msg ID:
><memo.20060211134838.680C@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>, Alan,
>alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk took the time to etch the
>following into Usenet History:
>
>
>
>
>Are they going to stop teaching evolution? No.
>
>Leftist Fascists must never allow dissent! The people of Ohio must
>never be allowed to decide what they teach their own children.
>Those children belong to the State!! We are the State!! We the
>unelected guardians of Leftist Fascism!!
>
>And before you start, XXXXnozzle, the people elected their leaders.
>
>The right of the people to think for themselves must be quashed!!
>
>One People, One Idealogy, One Leader!!
Intelligent design may be as good as any other religious
philosophy, but it isn't science. Not by a long shot. It pains
me to see the states mandate religious studies into the science
curriculum of universities. Talk about fascism...
Kali
--
"We found a great number of books...and since they contained
nothing but superstitions and falsehoods of the Devil we burned
them all." - Bishop Diego De Landa, who burned priceless books
of Mayan history and science
| |
| Professeur Von TwoSteps OA. 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
| From : Kali <kali@lart.com>
Message-ID : <dslje8$fak$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
>It pains me to see the states mandate religious studies into the science
>curriculum of universities
Such pain, should religious studies be replaces by a compulsory syllabus of
internet stalking, bullying, rude name calling and general stoopidity ?
Those that graduate would then be eligible to have AuK on their business card
| |
| Imperial_Leader 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
|
In article with msg ID:
<dslje8$fak$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Kali, kali@lart.com
took the time to etch the following into Usenet History:
>In article <11Feb20060812@lart.com>, posted 11 Feb 2006 14:19:03
>GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
>
>
>Intelligent design may be as good as any other religious
>philosophy, but it isn't science. Not by a long shot. It pains
>me to see the states mandate religious studies into the science
>curriculum of universities. Talk about fascism...
Evolution is far from being empirocally proven, using the standards
of scientific proof applied to other scientific endeavors. The drum
has been beaten so long and so hard that it is the consensus amongst
academics that it has.
It is sad to see Academia follow the same abandonment of reason that
is the root of so many of our problems today. As an example,
conservative speakers on campus are routinely jeered, pelted and
silenced. The diversity of opinion crowd calls this hate speech.
Apparently the only diversity of opinion they are interested in is
variations on their own agenda.
But this isn`t an issue of diversity of opinion or even a speech
issue. It is, at its core, the issue of whether a free people can
decide what they want to believe and what they wish to teach their
children.
Oh, I hear it now, separation of Church and State.
I`ve read the Constitution many times and have never found anything
beyond a prohibition on a State sponsored religious sect.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the people of Ohio choose to offer the alternative to the
evolution theory, the highest law in the land says the Congress has
no business in that affair.
Make no law. Not, can make a law in some places in some situations.
No law. If Ohioans wish to excercise releigion in school, that`s
up to them. Not you, not me.
I do see many references to a divine providence and a belief in God
in the Declaration of Independence. It`s on our money. And believe
it or not, an *overwhelming* majority of Americans believe in God.
Let the people of Ohio do as they will, it is a "tyranny of the
minority" to do otherwise.
--
Damn I need a sig.
| |
| The Gunder Thod 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
| On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:36:56 +1000 Professeur Von TwoSteps OA. <.@.>
wrote:
>From : Kali <kali@lart.com>
>Message-ID : <dslje8$fak$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>pain
>stoopidity ?
>
>
She rang the bell you answered. Good dog.
--
Registered player of the Gorn of Hondor
| |
|
| In article <12Feb20065239@lart.com>, posted 12 Feb 2006 10:22:43
GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
>
>In article with msg ID:
><dslje8$fak$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Kali, kali@lart.com
>took the time to etch the following into Usenet History:
>
>
>
>
>Evolution is far from being empirocally proven, using the standards
>of scientific proof applied to other scientific endeavors. The drum
>has been beaten so long and so hard that it is the consensus amongst
>academics that it has.
Evolution (genetic mutation and adaptation) has been proven, and
is not questioned by science. Theories about the origin of human
life have developed out of this knowledge, and as theories, have
not been "proven". I suppose one can believe in a creator who
put life here, and that life evolved, but here you have religion
(creator) and science (evolution). Apples and oranges.
>It is sad to see Academia follow the same abandonment of reason that
>is the root of so many of our problems today. As an example,
>conservative speakers on campus are routinely jeered, pelted and
>silenced. The diversity of opinion crowd calls this hate speech.
>Apparently the only diversity of opinion they are interested in is
>variations on their own agenda.
>
>But this isn`t an issue of diversity of opinion or even a speech
>issue. It is, at its core, the issue of whether a free people can
>decide what they want to believe and what they wish to teach their
>children.
>
>Oh, I hear it now, separation of Church and State.
>
>I`ve read the Constitution many times and have never found anything
>beyond a prohibition on a State sponsored religious sect.
>
>Amendment I
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
>of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
>If the people of Ohio choose to offer the alternative to the
>evolution theory, the highest law in the land says the Congress has
>no business in that affair.
>
>Make no law. Not, can make a law in some places in some situations.
> No law. If Ohioans wish to excercise releigion in school, that`s
>up to them. Not you, not me.
>
>I do see many references to a divine providence and a belief in God
>in the Declaration of Independence. It`s on our money. And believe
>it or not, an *overwhelming* majority of Americans believe in God.
>
>Let the people of Ohio do as they will, it is a "tyranny of the
>minority" to do otherwise.
Let's agree to disagree on this issue. You're adding politics to
your argument. As a scientist I see it more fundamentally;
religion != science, and doesn't belong in the science
department of universities. It belongs in religious studies
courses. No one is telling families in Kansas or Ohio that their
children can't study and practice religion if they want to.
Kali
--
"We found a great number of books...and since they contained
nothing but superstitions and falsehoods of the Devil we burned
them all." - Bishop Diego De Landa, who burned priceless books
of Mayan history and science
| |
| Imperial_Leader 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
|
In article with msg ID:
<dso00l$aqh$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Kali, kali@lart.com
took the time to etch the following into Usenet History:
>Evolution (genetic mutation and adaptation) has been proven, and
>is not questioned by science.
Show me the citations where it has been proven.
It is questioned by "science" as is evidenced by the ongoing debate
between scientists.
>Theories about the origin of human
>life have developed out of this knowledge, and as theories, have
>not been "proven". I suppose one can believe in a creator who
>put life here, and that life evolved, but here you have religion
>(creator) and science (evolution). Apples and oranges.
Science and releigion are not mutally exclusive.
>
>Let's agree to disagree on this issue. You're adding politics to
>your argument.
OK. But this *is* a political issue. One side wants to deny the
people of
Ohio their right to think for themselves. To live as they want.
To teach their children as they want.
Hey, even if they`re wrong, as you seem to suggest, they have the
right to be wrong.
It is arrogance and folly to think otherwise.
>As a scientist I see it more fundamentally;
>religion != science, and doesn't belong in the science
>department of universities. I
Even if the people want it to?
Only elitists think they know better than the unwashed and must
protect them from themselves.
This is the very heart of muslim fascism as an example.
They will decide what you will think and where you will think it.
They will never allow a free people to exist, much less decide
for themselves what they will think.
>It belongs in religious studies
>courses.
It belongs wherever a free people decide it belongs.
Freedom is difficult sometimes, it means you have to accept
other people`s choices even when you don`t like them.
Even if you think they are wrong.
>No one is telling families in Kansas or Ohio that their
>children can't study and practice religion if they want to.
Sure they are. It`s incremental. First you can`t do it here.
--
Damn I need a sig.
| |
| Dr. Wee Hung Lo 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
|
"Kali" <kali@lart.com> wrote in message
news:dslje8$fak$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
: In article <11Feb20060812@lart.com>, posted 11 Feb 2006 14:19:03
: GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
:
: >
: >In article with msg ID:
: ><memo.20060211134838.680C@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>, Alan,
: >alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk took the time to etch the
: >following into Usenet History:
: >
: >
: >
: >>URGENT: DEFEND SCIENCE IN OHIO
: >>
: >>Ohio is the next front in the religious right's war on science.
: >>
: >>Next Tuesday, February 14, the Ohio Board of education will vote on
stripping
: >>language from the state's science standards to allow the teaching of
intelligent
: >>design.
: >>
: >>Take action! Tell the Ohio Board of education to stop intelligent
design and
: >>defend science.
: >
: >Are they going to stop teaching evolution? No.
: >
: >Leftist Fascists must never allow dissent! The people of Ohio must
: >never be allowed to decide what they teach their own children.
: >Those children belong to the State!! We are the State!! We the
: >unelected guardians of Leftist Fascism!!
: >
: >And before you start, XXXXnozzle, the people elected their leaders.
: >
: >The right of the people to think for themselves must be quashed!!
: >
: >One People, One Idealogy, One Leader!!
:
: Intelligent design may be as good as any other religious
: philosophy, but it isn't science. Not by a long shot. It pains
: me to see the states mandate religious studies into the science
: curriculum of universities. Talk about fascism...
:
Fascism opposes it, "there shall be no other theories than mine."
IT proposes a theory and would like the facts to fall where they may.
Evolution is only a theory with a belief structure that supports it.
Little in science supports it. There is a limited amount of evolution
within species, but as yet I have seen nothing that supports adaptive
evolution. One proof of that is the lowly Bee.
The theory of evolution is based on misapplied and or misunderstood
science, much of which is flawed in itself, use carbon dating as an
example.
| |
| Dr. Wee Hung Lo 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
|
"Kali" <kali@lart.com> wrote in message
news:dso00l$aqh$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
: In article <12Feb20065239@lart.com>, posted 12 Feb 2006 10:22:43
: GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
:
: >
: >In article with msg ID:
: ><dslje8$fak$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Kali, kali@lart.com
: >took the time to etch the following into Usenet History:
: >
: >
: >
: >>In article <11Feb20060812@lart.com>, posted 11 Feb 2006 14:19:03
: >>GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
: >>
: >>>
: >>>In article with msg ID:
: >>><memo.20060211134838.680C@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk>, Alan,
: >>>alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk took the time to etch the
: >>>following into Usenet History:
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>>URGENT: DEFEND SCIENCE IN OHIO
: >>>>
: >>>>Ohio is the next front in the religious right's war on science.
: >>>>
: >>>>Next Tuesday, February 14, the Ohio Board of education will vote
on stripping
: >>>>language from the state's science standards to allow the teaching
of intelligent
: >>>>design.
: >>>>
: >>>>Take action! Tell the Ohio Board of education to stop intelligent
design and
: >>>>defend science.
: >>>
: >>>Are they going to stop teaching evolution? No.
: >>>
: >>>Leftist Fascists must never allow dissent! The people of Ohio must
: >>>never be allowed to decide what they teach their own children.
: >>>Those children belong to the State!! We are the State!! We the
: >>>unelected guardians of Leftist Fascism!!
: >>>
: >>>And before you start, XXXXnozzle, the people elected their leaders.
: >>>
: >>>The right of the people to think for themselves must be quashed!!
: >>>
: >>>One People, One Idealogy, One Leader!!
: >>
: >>Intelligent design may be as good as any other religious
: >>philosophy, but it isn't science. Not by a long shot. It pains
: >>me to see the states mandate religious studies into the science
: >>curriculum of universities. Talk about fascism...
: >
: >Evolution is far from being empirocally proven, using the standards
: >of scientific proof applied to other scientific endeavors. The drum
: >has been beaten so long and so hard that it is the consensus amongst
: >academics that it has.
:
: Evolution (genetic mutation and adaptation) has been proven, and
: is not questioned by science. Theories about the origin of human
: life have developed out of this knowledge, and as theories, have
: not been "proven". I suppose one can believe in a creator who
: put life here, and that life evolved, but here you have religion
: (creator) and science (evolution). Apples and oranges.
:
You might want to check out this article
http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm
It throws a major kink into the theory of evolution.
Evolution is not a science, there may be scientists who study the theory
of and attempt to support evolution, but that is based on their beliefs
and desire to support them. The reason I say that is because when faced
with facts they either try to dismiss them out of hand, excuse them out
of the way, simply because it appears to, at first blush, prove them
wrong.
I believe it has been well established that mankind and dinasours lived
and walked together at the same time in history, but that does not fit
their timeline so many attempt to dismiss it.
With the recently discovered and well preserved soft tissue mass of
extinct creatures it throws another kink into timelines that are
necessary to support the rather weak theory of evolution.
: >It is sad to see Academia follow the same abandonment of reason that
: >is the root of so many of our problems today. As an example,
: >conservative speakers on campus are routinely jeered, pelted and
: >silenced. The diversity of opinion crowd calls this hate speech.
: >Apparently the only diversity of opinion they are interested in is
: >variations on their own agenda.
: >
: >But this isn`t an issue of diversity of opinion or even a speech
: >issue. It is, at its core, the issue of whether a free people can
: >decide what they want to believe and what they wish to teach their
: >children.
: >
: >Oh, I hear it now, separation of Church and State.
: >
: >I`ve read the Constitution many times and have never found anything
: >beyond a prohibition on a State sponsored religious sect.
: >
: >Amendment I
: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
: >or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
: >of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
: >assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
: >
: >If the people of Ohio choose to offer the alternative to the
: >evolution theory, the highest law in the land says the Congress has
: >no business in that affair.
: >
: >Make no law. Not, can make a law in some places in some situations.
: > No law. If Ohioans wish to excercise releigion in school, that`s
: >up to them. Not you, not me.
: >
: >I do see many references to a divine providence and a belief in God
: >in the Declaration of Independence. It`s on our money. And believe
: >it or not, an *overwhelming* majority of Americans believe in God.
: >
: >Let the people of Ohio do as they will, it is a "tyranny of the
: >minority" to do otherwise.
:
: Let's agree to disagree on this issue. You're adding politics to
: your argument. As a scientist I see it more fundamentally;
: religion != science, and doesn't belong in the science
: department of universities. It belongs in religious studies
: courses. No one is telling families in Kansas or Ohio that their
: children can't study and practice religion if they want to.
:
Then you would agree that any so-called science based on a belief
structure should be thrown out as well?
In truth I find the arguments against religion being taught in schools
facetitious at best. It would be better it they just stated
religion=judeo-christian faiths since they support willingly and teach
Islam, witchcraft, Hindu, Buddhism, etc. have no problems teaching them
and also inject Yoga into various courses, like health or whatever.
I like the agreeable disagrement part, ;), and while I would agree that
there are facets of evolution studies that can constitute true science
at the heart of the matter is just theory based on suppositions.
: Kali
| |
|
| In article <12Feb20065917@lart.com>, posted 12 Feb 2006 21:16:31
GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
>
>In article with msg ID:
><dso00l$aqh$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Kali, kali@lart.com
>took the time to etch the following into Usenet History:
>
>
>
>
>Show me the citations where it has been proven.
Read anything by Dawkins for a review. His latest is 'The
Selfish Gene'. Check out the fossil evidence and anything over
the past 20+ years on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers.
>It is questioned by "science" as is evidenced by the ongoing debate
>between scientists.
My views on this issue are represented here:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/leshnereditorial2.pdf
http://www.psychologicalscience.org...Article.cfm?id=
1860
This is not as much about evolution as it is about what science
is and what it's not. Scientific theories are parsimonious and
testable. Intelligent Design simply is not.
>
>Science and releigion are not mutally exclusive.
They are exclusive in fundamental ways. Science demands evidence
and seeks to falsify theories. Religion demands faith and seeks
to strengthen theories. This is not to say that they should be
pitted against each other, or that they can't coexist. It just
makes them different.
>
>OK. But this *is* a political issue. One side wants to deny the
>people of
>Ohio their right to think for themselves. To live as they want.
>To teach their children as they want.
I disagree that this is about Ohioans' right to think for
themselves. It looks more like the Christian religion is trying
to redefine science.
>Hey, even if they`re wrong, as you seem to suggest, they have the
>right to be wrong.
>
>It is arrogance and folly to think otherwise.
>
>
>
>Even if the people want it to?
People, who? Are you suggesting that scientists don't know what
science is and isn't, and therefore Christians should decide by
popular vote?
>Only elitists think they know better than the unwashed and must
>protect them from themselves.
It's hardly elitist to want to protect the integrity of science,
unless you are using that term as a substitute for expertise.
>This is the very heart of muslim fascism as an example.
>
>They will decide what you will think and where you will think it.
>They will never allow a free people to exist, much less decide
>for themselves what they will think.
Sounds like religion to me. Muslims, Christians,...
>
>It belongs wherever a free people decide it belongs.
Perhaps we should vote to require our mathematics faculty to
teach English lit now, too?
>Freedom is difficult sometimes, it means you have to accept
>other people`s choices even when you don`t like them.
>Even if you think they are wrong.
>
>
>Sure they are. It`s incremental. First you can`t do it here.
Slippery slope argument.
Religious studies aren't in danger here. Science is.
>--
>Damn I need a sig.
Kali
--
"We found a great number of books...and since they contained
nothing but superstitions and falsehoods of the Devil we burned
them all." - Bishop Diego De Landa, who burned priceless books
of Mayan history and science
| |
|
| In article <43efc191_1@x-privat.org>, posted 13 Feb 2006
00:15:29 +0100, Dr. Wee Hung Lo dr.whl@hocho.org says...
>
>"Kali" <kali@lart.com> wrote in message
>news:dso00l$aqh$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>: In article <12Feb20065239@lart.com>, posted 12 Feb 2006 10:22:43
>: GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
[...]
>: >Evolution is far from being empirocally proven, using the standards
>: >of scientific proof applied to other scientific endeavors. The drum
>: >has been beaten so long and so hard that it is the consensus amongst
>: >academics that it has.
>:
>: Evolution (genetic mutation and adaptation) has been proven, and
>: is not questioned by science. Theories about the origin of human
>: life have developed out of this knowledge, and as theories, have
>: not been "proven". I suppose one can believe in a creator who
>: put life here, and that life evolved, but here you have religion
>: (creator) and science (evolution). Apples and oranges.
>:
>
>You might want to check out this article
>http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm
>
>It throws a major kink into the theory of evolution.
>
>Evolution is not a science,
Evolution is a theory. A parsimonious, testable theory. I find
the evidence for it compelling. I find some of the evidence
irrefutable.
there may be scientists who study the theory
>of and attempt to support evolution, but that is based on their beliefs
>and desire to support them. The reason I say that is because when faced
>with facts they either try to dismiss them out of hand, excuse them out
>of the way, simply because it appears to, at first blush, prove them
>wrong.
>
>I believe it has been well established that mankind and dinasours lived
>and walked together at the same time in history, but that does not fit
>their timeline so many attempt to dismiss it.
>
>With the recently discovered and well preserved soft tissue mass of
>extinct creatures it throws another kink into timelines that are
>necessary to support the rather weak theory of evolution.
Theories about the origins of human beings is built on a body of
strong evidence for evolution, but not all those theories will
survive the rigors of scientific inquiry.
[...]
>: Let's agree to disagree on this issue. You're adding politics to
>: your argument. As a scientist I see it more fundamentally;
>: religion != science, and doesn't belong in the science
>: department of universities. It belongs in religious studies
>: courses. No one is telling families in Kansas or Ohio that their
>: children can't study and practice religion if they want to.
>:
>
>Then you would agree that any so-called science based on a belief
>structure should be thrown out as well?
I don't understand what you are asking, here.
>In truth I find the arguments against religion being taught in schools
>facetitious at best. It would be better it they just stated
>religion=judeo-christian faiths since they support willingly and teach
>Islam, witchcraft, Hindu, Buddhism, etc. have no problems teaching them
>and also inject Yoga into various courses, like health or whatever.
I don't think many people would have a problem with religious
studies courses at any level, which would teach kids about
various religions. And there's no law against private religious
schools, if a family wants a child to be educated in the
tradition of one religion. The problem comes in when taxpayer-
funded government schools give preference to one religion over
others.
>I like the agreeable disagrement part, ;), and while I would agree that
>there are facets of evolution studies that can constitute true science
>at the heart of the matter is just theory based on suppositions.
Gravity is "just a theory" too.
We're better off agreeing to disagree, and enjoying what we have
in common, cuz I am an academic scientist left-of-middle
atheist...  I may be an arrogant elitist, too. *shrug*
Kali
--
"We found a great number of books...and since they contained
nothing but superstitions and falsehoods of the Devil we burned
them all." - Bishop Diego De Landa, who burned priceless books
of Mayan history and science
| |
| Dr. Wee Hung Lo 2006-02-25, 8:45 pm |
|
"Kali" <kali@lart.com> wrote in message
news:dsojbq$op$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
: In article <43efc191_1@x-privat.org>, posted 13 Feb 2006
: 00:15:29 +0100, Dr. Wee Hung Lo dr.whl@hocho.org says...
:
: >
: >"Kali" <kali@lart.com> wrote in message
: >news:dso00l$aqh$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
: >: In article <12Feb20065239@lart.com>, posted 12 Feb 2006 10:22:43
: >: GMT, Imperial_Leader Imperial_Leader@attilaKhan.com says...
:
: [...]
:
: >: >Evolution is far from being empirocally proven, using the
standards
: >: >of scientific proof applied to other scientific endeavors. The
drum
: >: >has been beaten so long and so hard that it is the consensus
amongst
: >: >academics that it has.
: >:
: >: Evolution (genetic mutation and adaptation) has been proven, and
: >: is not questioned by science. Theories about the origin of human
: >: life have developed out of this knowledge, and as theories, have
: >: not been "proven". I suppose one can believe in a creator who
: >: put life here, and that life evolved, but here you have religion
: >: (creator) and science (evolution). Apples and oranges.
: >:
: >
: >You might want to check out this article
: >http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm
: >
: >It throws a major kink into the theory of evolution.
: >
: >Evolution is not a science,
:
: Evolution is a theory. A parsimonious, testable theory. I find
: the evidence for it compelling. I find some of the evidence
: irrefutable.
:
: there may be scientists who study the theory
: >of and attempt to support evolution, but that is based on their
beliefs
: >and desire to support them. The reason I say that is because when
faced
: >with facts they either try to dismiss them out of hand, excuse them
out
: >of the way, simply because it appears to, at first blush, prove them
: >wrong.
: >
: >I believe it has been well established that mankind and dinasours
lived
: >and walked together at the same time in history, but that does not
fit
: >their timeline so many attempt to dismiss it.
: >
: >With the recently discovered and well preserved soft tissue mass of
: >extinct creatures it throws another kink into timelines that are
: >necessary to support the rather weak theory of evolution.
:
: Theories about the origins of human beings is built on a body of
: strong evidence for evolution, but not all those theories will
: survive the rigors of scientific inquiry.
:
: [...]
:
: >: Let's agree to disagree on this issue. You're adding politics to
: >: your argument. As a scientist I see it more fundamentally;
: >: religion != science, and doesn't belong in the science
: >: department of universities. It belongs in religious studies
: >: courses. No one is telling families in Kansas or Ohio that their
: >: children can't study and practice religion if they want to.
: >:
: >
: >Then you would agree that any so-called science based on a belief
: >structure should be thrown out as well?
:
: I don't understand what you are asking, here.
:
: >In truth I find the arguments against religion being taught in
schools
: >facetitious at best. It would be better it they just stated
: >religion=judeo-christian faiths since they support willingly and
teach
: >Islam, witchcraft, Hindu, Buddhism, etc. have no problems teaching
them
: >and also inject Yoga into various courses, like health or whatever.
:
: I don't think many people would have a problem with religious
: studies courses at any level, which would teach kids about
: various religions. And there's no law against private religious
: schools, if a family wants a child to be educated in the
: tradition of one religion. The problem comes in when taxpayer-
: funded government schools give preference to one religion over
: others.
:
: >I like the agreeable disagrement part, ;), and while I would agree
that
: >there are facets of evolution studies that can constitute true
science
: >at the heart of the matter is just theory based on suppositions.
:
: Gravity is "just a theory" too.
:
: We're better off agreeing to disagree, and enjoying what we have
: in common, cuz I am an academic scientist left-of-middle
: atheist... I may be an arrogant elitist, too. *shrug*
:
: Kali
Kali, I was going to respond to this last paragraph first, but decided
to hold off in case you wished to clarify or modify what was written. I
wouldn't consider friendships to be so fragile.
| |
| !:?\) 2006-03-28, 12:31 am |
|
"Kali" <kali@lart.com> wrote in message
news:dsojbq$op$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> In article <43efc191_1@x-privat.org>, posted 13 Feb 2006
> 00:15:29 +0100, Dr. Wee Hung Lo dr.whl@hocho.org says...
>
>
> [...]
>
I beg to differ, Evolution has been Proven and DNS can tell us how old
Humans are.
The Problem is the Clovis First who ignore the facts in front of their
faces.
Man is much older than was thought and the evidence is all around.
Clovis says 13.5 thousand years Humans came here to the US but that doesn't
explain the Red Paint people who have been here more that 70 thousand years.
Also in TX a River Bed where Dino Prints go over Modern Human Prints.
Man over 65 Million years?
How about a man made object in a Rock formed in a Volcano 5000,000 years
ago!:?)
These are some things they put in the back of Archeology Books in the
Apendix because they don't conform to science of the day.
Example: Dino's are warm Blooded that was ignored and Bones proving it were
hidden in the back rooms of Museums etc...
[vbcol=seagreen]
I think both are right.
Man has Evolved but what makes Man so arrogant to think God is done cooking
him yet?
We have a long way to go before we are in God's Image.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Yes it is but ignoring the obvious is as bad as Evolutionists who ignore
facts until they come up and bite them.
Both are thick headed.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Evolution is a theory. A parsimonious, testable theory. I find
> the evidence for it compelling. I find some of the evidence
> irrefutable.
As do I, but I know there is more to the story that would explain these
oddies.
>
> there may be scientists who study the theory
There is proof of that in TX where Dino Prints walk over Modern Foot Prints.
[vbcol=seagreen]
No, in fact it adds to our knowledge as DNA can tell us how many mutations
the animal went through that tells us it's age and what other creatures are
related to it.
By following the mothers through time in the DNA we can tell how old and
compare that to the Geological Record it was found in.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Theories about the origins of human beings is built on a body of
> strong evidence for evolution, but not all those theories will
> survive the rigors of scientific inquiry.
Agreed.
>
> [...]
>
Religion tries to find what conforms to the Bible.
Scientests try to find the truth but sometimes they let it's own ego get in
the way of pure science and ignore the truth because it doesn't conform to
the Theroy of the day.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I don't understand what you are asking, here.
Yes and no.
If they can be objective then yes, if but then no.
>
>
> I don't think many people would have a problem with religious
> studies courses at any level, which would teach kids about
> various religions. And there's no law against private religious
> schools, if a family wants a child to be educated in the
> tradition of one religion. The problem comes in when taxpayer-
> funded government schools give preference to one religion over
> others.
I think Science and Religion can both be right if religion would be more
Flexable.
What's to say God's day and year are the same as our LOL!:?)
Again, why I say God isn't done cooking Man yet!:?)
>
>
> Gravity is "just a theory" too.
Not a Theroy, a fact that can be mesured and felt etc....
But there is a Theroy about Gravity but we will go into that another time.
>
> We're better off agreeing to disagree, and enjoying what we have
> in common, cuz I am an academic scientist left-of-middle
> atheist... I may be an arrogant elitist, too. *shrug*
>
> Kali
> --
> "We found a great number of books...and since they contained
> nothing but superstitions and falsehoods of the Devil we burned
> them all." - Bishop Diego De Landa, who burned priceless books
> of Mayan history and science
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kevin!:?)
Fight Spam Friendly Providers, use WWW.SPEWS.ORG
http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam-SPEWS.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
Comment: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzerry8x/
iQCVAwUBQ9KqPEsJ7vwXdsA5AQLV8gP+LTRV8L/Jznk5sSbzS9s8kLhf6ZwfmAWl
x27T1TDpRM/pnyQNmvnGYLM868lzcVWiFcq9+fCTQdzryo8bo5ABzwRW8py8TaEl
/N3Ag/ostlnZMyf4UvA9J4v/CFmzqRHR77jeY4WP6JRzznTT1+wC/LK4YVLX1ioZ
6GIcZ6E3GrI=
=os2h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| |
|
|