|
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: In fact, the Catholic church, through the Jesuit order is largely responsible for dragging the world out of the Dark Ages. While the Jesuits have long been educated and open to new ideas, that claim is pure hyperbole. Who else was preserving knowledge and passing it on during the Dark Ages in Europe? Anyone? Nope. Just the Catholic Church. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Ultimately, somebody has to pay the price of the water. Yes, so what? Everybody has to pay for water, one way or another. California's agricultural water usage is enormous. That would be because California's agricultural production is prodigious. If agriculture was cut in half, there would be enough water freed up to double the population and industry in CA without any change in consumption patterns. But there would be less agricultural production. And, there would be more people and more industry, which has a much more harmful effect on the environment than agriculture. That would roughly double the state GDP while dropping less than 2% of GDP in agricultural production. I don't know where you get the idea that a 50% reduction in agriculture in California would result in less than a 50% reduction in agricultural production in California. It seems there are better ways of spreading the cost of water around. Not really. Mike -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Since you live on debt, you'll be broke Don't be silly. Who gets shafted in a bankruptcy? Yours is a country that can't survive, so it seems, without debt. If you default or go bankrupt, you can't borrow except at very high costs. Your dollar will also trash, making imports, which you thrive on, too expensive. You didn't answer the question. The vast majority of those imports are luxury goods, not necessities or staples. We can get along without them just fine. You mean like oil? No, like luxury goods. Oil we'll get one way or another. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Well, let's see...the "countries" in the EU are now pretty much "states" like those in the US, aren't they? Different languages, different cultures, different governments... I'd say they're not. By comparison, the US states are a union with weak state rights. Actually, much stronger states rights than in the EU. You do know that an alternative term for an independent nation is "state," don't you? Semantic triviality. Nothing to do with the US use of "state". Untrue. Each state in the United States consists of a geographic area and a population of people with an elected government that they control that is part of a larger conglomeration of states united in common cause. It's no different than the EU. The EU got the idea from us, in fact. Where do you think the EU got the idea? From us. Yes of course, without the US nothing would exist. This might come as a surprise to you, but the idea of an association of states goes back a long, long, long time before 1776. But was never effectively implemented anywhere until the US showed them the way. Total bull****, seen from my position as a person living in a country with government provided health care. Uh huh. Do you have heart disease? Diabetes? Cancer? No but members of my family do and are receiving fine treatment. Timely and quite effective. You have no idea what medical care is like in other countries, so why waste your time writing the drivel that you do? Well, are you claiming bad press then? Whenever someone here talks about socialized medicine, the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada and Britain are commonplace. Maybe you're just lucky. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
BCITORGB wrote:
Fortunately Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora and had 5 children. That's where the Usenet is so useful -- we can all learn... your response caused me to do some research and i came up with slightly different info.. "1525 heiratete sie Martin Luther. Dem Ehepaar wurden sechs Kinder geboren, von denen vier das Erwachsenenalter erreichten." -- 6 kids, 4 of whom survived into adulthood... who knows which source is correct, but thanks for sending me on a learning journey. The "5 children" factoid came from extras with the DVD movie "Luther" starring Joseph Fiennes, Bruno Ganz, Peter Ustinov, and Claire Cox. The first daughter (second child) Elisabeth died soon, 8 months old. The second daughter (third child) Magdalena lasted until 13 years old. The other four (three sons and one daughter) lived until adulthood. One son became a lawyer, one a theologian, one a physician, and the third daughter Margarethe married into a wealthy Prussian family. So any number from 4 to 6 is correct, I'd say. |
Weiser says:
================ Well, are you claiming bad press then? Whenever someone here talks about socialized medicine, the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada and Britain are commonplace. Maybe you're just lucky. ================== Probably bad press all around, eh? Whenever the media talks about the Americam model, it's examples of the working poor, nursing nagging ailments that under socialized medicine would have readily been cleared up. I've had plenty of relatives with eye, cancer, heart, diabetes, etc etc problems. NO issues with our health system. NO waits (in one case, in fact, helicopter from one town to the next -- immediately from the GP's office). frtzw906 |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a single definition of a single law of science. Could you please post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that is widely accepted by the scientific community. One of the standard techniques of the anti-science crowd is to construct a strawman version of a supposed theory and then attack that. They often ignore or misunderstand the real science that is understood and practiced by scientists. (This from a study by a York University professor - I can dig up his name and possibly the publication of the study if you're desperately in need of satisfaction.) I stand by my original post. Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
I never suggested that I did. On the contrary - you keep insisting that Americans are free because of their constitution and that everyone else is a slave. In fact, the constitution does not guarantee freedom. it only provides for it as long as there are enough people to defend it. People change. There used to be widespread support for kings and queens and people fought to the death to defend them. Now some defend constitutions. American is not the first example of democracy - democracy has been known to disappear in the past. It proves that you are slaves to those who do have guns. We are not slaves to anyone and we have a constitution that protects us as much as yours. The pen is mightier than the sword and always has been. Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Thus, my answer is correct and you are wrong. Stop playing with words and look at the facts. Mike |
Weiser says:
============ the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada and Britain are commonplace. =============== I think the misunderstandings are due to differences in how medical priorities are established. In Canada, "your turn" is decided by a physician. If more emergent cases arise, your less-critical procedure is "delayed". That is, you have no "absolute" time for your procedure, because the system cannot anticipate more important cases coming up. As I'm given to understand from conversations with Americans, your "place in line" is a function of both emergent need and ability to pay. Philosophically, the Canadin people do not accept that money should be a factor in these decisions. For us, the only criteria in making these decisions ought to be medical -- that is, whatever medical professionals think the priorities ought to be. Overly simplistic, but a reasonable picture, I think. frtzw906 |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God. Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after a review of the "Galileo Affair". There is a large body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe, combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of intelligent design of the Universe. It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not prove the existence of God. A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything. There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever happened to academic freedom of inqiry? There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks Elvis is still alive. Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Um, the primary reason for stockpiles is to provide food in the event of crop failures and shortages BUt if you check the history of US agriculture, the primary reason was _not_ to provide food - it was to prop up prices. Stop playing with words and check the facts. Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to do with terrorism. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny, You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border is _not_ open. and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US Which only proves that the US can't control its borders. Don't blame anyone for your problems. The 9/11 terrorists arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada. Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Nah, we'll just drill more wells here. Canada will suffer far more than the US from a border closing. If you could increase domestic oil production in the US by 10% of your total consumption, it would already have been done. That would be in excess of 25% of current US production. That is an enormous amount of oil and the value to the domestic oil industry would be tremendous. There is also no way you could replace the electricity you import without a lot of time and enormous expenditures. Nothing we can't do without. Raw materials and manufactured parts for US industry? For a start, closing the border would shut down GM, Ford and D/C's car plants. When the border was backed up after 9/11, Michigan Congressmen were the first to complain. I know you'd like to think Canada is essential to the success of the US, but it's not. The problem is that you are completely ignorant of the interconnectedness of the US with the rest of the world in general and Canada in particular. If the US could survive on its own, it would. It can't - it has become much too dependent on imports. The US has been spearheading free trade pacts for decades. Get your head out of your ass and look at the real world. Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
That would roughly double the state GDP while dropping less than 2% of GDP in agricultural production. I don't know where you get the idea that a 50% reduction in agriculture in California would result in less than a 50% reduction in agricultural production in California. Your head's been in your ass too long - you can no longer read. A 50% reduction in agriculture in California will result in a 2% reduction in California's GDP. You do know what GDP means, don't you? Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Oil we'll get one way or another. Mike |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Actually, much stronger states rights than in the EU. You really don't have a clue, do you? Individual states in the US have virtually _no_ power compared to the EU countries. They have less power than Canadian provinces. The US is a union of weak states. Canada is a confederation of relatively strong provinces. Europe is a loose union of independent countries. Completely opposite to what you claim. The advocates of strong state rights in the US _lost_ the civil war. Just check your history books. It would also do you some good to learn about political systems in the world, since you don't have any idea what you're talking about. It's no different than the EU. The EU got the idea from us, in fact. Jingoistic day-dreaming. Try some reality someday. Well, are you claiming bad press then? Whenever someone here talks about socialized medicine, the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada and Britain are commonplace. Maybe you're just lucky. I don't know where you get what you think are facts, but they don't jive with reality. Luck is not involved. Mike |
Michael Daly wrote: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God. Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after a review of the "Galileo Affair". There is a large body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe, combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of intelligent design of the Universe. It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not prove the existence of God. A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything. There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever happened to academic freedom of inqiry? There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks Elvis is still alive. Mike Mike, I knew that when I opened the can of worms at the start of this particular discussion in this thread, that the discussion would get a little intense. I have been watching your particular discussion with Scott, and I certainly don't want to jump into the middle of your fun and distract either of you. However if I could get a little of your attention on the side, I would like to ask you a few questions. Though I do not necessarily agree, I appreciate your perpective and your intensity of thought, and thought process. You apparently believe strongly in the scientific approach, and do not believe that religion, and in particular Christianity has much to offer the 21st century man. Is there any conceivable reason that you would change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your conclusions. It is easy to throw around the Cat. Ch. and the Jesuits, and things that happened hundreds of years ago. I wasn't there, nor you, so it is hard to know what was really going on, or interview those scientist that were there at the time. And similarily, today I can only interview you. You are the scientist of today in my experience, so I hope you can entertain my little fantascy, and share your insight and personal observations that you base your personal philosophy. Respectfully TnT |
BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================ Well, are you claiming bad press then? Whenever someone here talks about socialized medicine, the examples of people waitlisted to death in Canada and Britain are commonplace. Maybe you're just lucky. ================== Probably bad press all around, eh? Whenever the media talks about the Americam model, it's examples of the working poor, nursing nagging ailments that under socialized medicine would have readily been cleared up. Sounds like the media is once again depicting sensationalised viewer-attracting examples that are not representative of reality... but what else is new? Not too long ago Fox aired a so called "documentary" about live new-born babies who were tossed on piles to die. The funny thing was that no Dutch reporter had heard of anything like that ever happening, and even a German report exists about how Fox aired something that never happened. It turned out to be something that a Fox reporter who only stayed in the Netherlands for a day made up... Very original and very bogus. I guess he decided that mixing two controversial items about the Netherlands, i.e. legalised abortion and euthanasia, would draw more U.S. viewers. puke I've had plenty of relatives with eye, cancer, heart, diabetes, etc etc problems. NO issues with our health system. NO waits (in one case, in fact, helicopter from one town to the next -- immediately from the GP's office). Ditto here. The only exception is certain transplants for which very few donors exist, but for that there is also a waiting list in the U.S.. Unless of course you pay a fortune to let some Indian streetkid get cut open in a New Delhi private hospital and getting his organ. :-( -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
Wilko, long ago, the USA pioneered the implementation of universal
education. The western world owes much to those endeavors. Assuming that public education is a good thing (and I do), I find it difficult to accept that public healthcare is not every bit as "good" or important. Perhaps even more so. Is it just me, or could it be that the long-standing bias against public healthcare in the USA is a function of a well-financed medical profession lobby? In most countries, before public healthcare was mandated, the dire warnings of the medical establishment about negative consequences of public medicine were shrill indeed. It has been decades now since most western nations adopted one form or another of public healthcare. The well-being of these peoples has not been compromised. But in the USA, it's still a case of, "The sky is falling!" frtzw906 |
If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be
powerful and so influential in the world. If all the other countries in the world was more like the US then we would not be the most powerful and influential country in the world because they would be the US's equal. The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best for our country, not what is best for other countries. The world should not dictate to the US what type of government we have. The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our strong economy. lynn BCITORGB wrote: Larry C says: =============== The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent elections to the Republic/moderate/right. Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. But it's pretty evident from recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to their liking than the Democrats. ============== Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government. Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United States do not agree. I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other fundamentalist cultures "red". frtzw906 |
Lynn Tegrity wrote: If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be powerful and so influential in the world. If the U.S. was more like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have had so many wars involving the U.S. and so many dirty wars started because of the U.S. influence. If all the other countries in the world was more like the US then we would not be the most powerful and influential country in the world because they would be the US's equal. There used to be the Soviets, who had the military advantage up untill the late seventies, and right now China and the EU are catching up with the U.S. economically with big steps. If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars. The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best for our country, not what is best for other countries. The citizens of most countries vote for what is good for them, however, there is not necessarily a discrepancy between voting what is good for you and what can also be good for most other people. The joke is that the citizens of the U.S. have a tendncy to vote for what seems to be good for them right now, conveniently forgetting the long term detrimental effects, or pushing their long term negative effects down the throats of future generations. Very egoistical thinking that will burden your children, grandchildren and maybe even more with the irresponsible financial and environmental behaviour of the current generation. Talking about behaving anti-socially... The world should not dictate to the US what type of government we have. The world won't, the rest of the world will just start to recognise it for the selfish double standard lying warmongers that the U.S. administration really is. The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our strong economy. What strong economy? It's a watered down version of what could be done to do the very least to limit the wholesale destruction and pollution of our environment. Since the average U.S. citizen uses up five times as much energy per person as the rest of the western world and causes a similarly staggering amount of pollution that isn't just limited to the U.S., who are you to tell others that you can keep going on this egoistical course without doing anything to limit the impact for everyone else? Do you also drive your car through your neighbour's lawn, throwing your spent BBQ ashes over his fence after sending the smoke over into his garden where the clean launndry was drying and their children were playing, ignoring their outcry, because you simply don't care what they think or say? One day you will need that neighbour, who has been stupid enough to keep the company that you work at afloat with his investment money for so long and they will not help you because you didn't treat them with respect for so long. The U.S. debt is skyrocketing, the trade balance is losing roughly a billion and a half dollars a day and the only way that you will keep afloat is with the help of those insane enough to think that by investing even more money into that bottomless pit that your economy has become, it will return their previous investments. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. economy crash will happen within my lifetime. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:43:47 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote: Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is "the truth." If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey, according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far beyond what they are today. They haven't. Interesting conundrum, isn't it? Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on "intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee, etc. Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've been peer-reviewed. It was just a suggestion, Scott, you needn't take it so hard. Relax. Don't drink so much coffee. The point is that it is easier to claim that "We're #1" when it is we who decide on the criteria for being #1. Who's to say that the most highly evolved creature is not some bacteria numbering in the trillions and trillions and able to adapt to survival almost anywhere. Man, with all his intelligence, hasn't even managed to number 10 billion, let alone a single trillion. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Illiterate? Write for FREE help |
....stuff deleted
Here I thought you were an open minded liberal conservative scientist that was interested in knowledge where ever he could find it. Shame on me for assuming again. Narrowminded anti-religious scientist are well - narrowminded. Not much difference that narrowminded fundementalist that have their mind made up, no more data needed! A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and waste, and waste! TnT There you go making assumptions and giving out labels. You've done this so many times, and you haven't been right yet. Still, why should that stop you? Sadly, you know little to nothing about evolution and make statements like there are scientific "observations in the bible." When challenged to present one, you didn't (nor could you, since they don't exist). Having read both the bible and the "Voyage of the Beagle," I can claim to have a somewhat better understanding of evolution than you. I was taught that life began on earth, in the oceans, about 2.5 billion years ago. The current thinking is that lifeforms that exist on the black smokers (volcanic effusions on the ocean floor) may be the first lifeforms on the planet and they, eventually, colonized the oceans and adapted to the new conditions in the shallower waters. If this is where life began, life on earth is even older than previously thought. This is how science works. Good scientists use evidence to establish hypotheses, and then test, or observe, to see if there is evidence to support those hypotheses. You must have an open mind to do this. So, let's go back to the bible, then. "Judge not lest you be judged," for example. Ever hear that one? Keep your labels and insults to yourself and everyone will get along with you a bit better. Perhaps, over time, I could develop some respect for you. It would not be difficult to improve over what little, if any, I can currently muster. Rick |
....stuff deleted
They can't fix it, Michael. It's an integral part of their system to criminalize use of soft drugs, to hand out ridiculous sentences to those who use soft drugs, so that those people can be used in the commercialised prison industry as a kind of legalised slave labour. Actually, Wilko, it is worse than this. The drug wars are extremely profitable to the importers of drugs. Were the drugs decriminalized, or worse, socialized, the prices would drop through the table, the profits would disappear, and those who are really pushing the crap (including the CIA, who ran one of the largest drug distribution industries in the world, and who may do still), would lose money. Al Capone was in favor of Prohibition, not against it. It made him millions and he did everything he could, even spend his "hard earned cash" to ensure that government was in no hurry to legalize alcohol. This is a lesson that was well learned in 1920, but forgotten by 1930. ....all to logical stuff deleted The enormous amounts of money wasted by the DEA and other agencies to try to stem the flow of drugs have not worked at all in the past decades, and I doubt that the so called "War on drugs" has been beneficial for anyone but the increasing budget of the DEA and the increased income of the drug cartels due to the very high price of drugs on the street. But it keeps the hypocritical politicians from admitting that the drug wars are lost, and "supporting the use of drugs by US citizens." Sadly, many of these invidiuals are in the business of taking PAC money from the same individuals who are operating the drug import business. As Mark Twain said, "...it's the best government that money can buy." Rick |
Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a single definition of a single law of science. Could you please post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that is widely accepted by the scientific community. That original statement is completely false. Darwin stated that organisms evolve to fit the environment in which they live, or they face extinction. The oceans, for example, are an extremely stable environment. Sharks will evolve, or go extinct, when the oceans change in some appreciable way that threatens shark survival. Those offspring that survive will produce offspring that are more likely to survive in those new conditions. Most who do not understand evolution make those broad statements which prove their lack of knowledge. ...stuff deleted I stand by my original post. Mike As you should. Rick |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott weiser says: =================== The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they would beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities demanded, ==================== And my point is that religion, unfettered, becomes the Taliban. That's a broad and largely untrue statement. I would agree that any dogma, unfettered, CAN become totalitarian, but so what? I see that you refer to the Catholic Church today. But how do you account for the Catholic Church of the Inquisition? That was then, this is now. Or the Catholic Church that scared the beejeesus out of anyone doing science? That was then, this is now. Even the Catholic Church can change. I'll stick with my initial proposition: there's only a fine line between one group of fundamentalists and another. A not unreasonable proposition, which you can apply just as easily to "fundamentalist" scientists. Weiser says: ================ And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet that is seeing an increase in members. ==================== Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? I say that anything that gets you through the day, makes you happy and doesn't hurt someone else is a good thing. But why is it losing people in Europe? Is it losing people? Are you sure? Can it be that educated people find little of value in the teachings of the church.? Can it be that you are wrong? frtzw906 -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted Here I thought you were an open minded liberal conservative scientist that was interested in knowledge where ever he could find it. Shame on me for assuming again. Narrowminded anti-religious scientist are well - narrowminded. Not much difference that narrowminded fundementalist that have their mind made up, no more data needed! A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and waste, and waste! TnT There you go making assumptions and giving out labels. You've done this so many times, and you haven't been right yet. Still, why should that stop you? Sadly, you know little to nothing about evolution and make statements like there are scientific "observations in the bible." What I said was, "I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science. It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would be little conflict." I did not say scientific observation, as you try to indite me of saying. Five thousand years ago, when some of the Bible record was first being written down, there were no evolutionary scientist making any sort of enlightened observations. The so called scientist did not show up until the last 4 or 5 hundred years. So any observations of the solar cycle for example were not made by scientist but by various religious types. Medical/Biology the same. Chemistry, Mathematics, you name it. All these folks made observations and tried to come up with some rational understanding of their observation. They did not have all the tools available, like telescopes and microscopes, etc. but the observations they made were often times astute and amazing. Granted they were not involved in the theoretical science that we have today, and tended to be of a more practicle subject matter for their time. But then that brings me to my point about so called science today, is often time of a theorical nature, and only recently in conflict with the scriptures. Please note, that I did not say religion. Religion has found many ways to get crosswise with truth of any vein, because it could not allow for truth outside of its own scope of vision. The scriptures are not presented as scientific document, and should not be used as such. Faith as presented in the scriptures, was not intended primarily as a support of science, nor science of faith, but as an adjunct to each other. In other words, I do not believe that they are in conflict with each other, nor dependent upon each other for veracity. It is just our limited understanding of the scripture, science, and the events that we are trying to observe, and interpret that distorts their relationship to faith and science, and results in apparent conflict. So any label of narrowmindedness that is available, is yours to wear if you choose. I still prefer to keep all my options open. I am glad that you are so well read, "the bible and the Voyage," and so well taught. I too was so taught, and not raised in a Christian home. I was not exposed to the scriptures, growing up, but to evolution. My dad was a geophysicist with Exxon, and he and I still have some rather strained conversations. However, I think that you show your lack of understanding, to say I don't know what I am talking about, you don't hardly know me to judge me! When challenged to present one, you didn't (nor could you, since they don't exist). Having read both the bible and the "Voyage of the Beagle," I can claim to have a somewhat better understanding of evolution than you. I was taught that life began on earth, in the oceans, about 2.5 billion years ago. The current thinking is that lifeforms that exist on the black smokers (volcanic effusions on the ocean floor) may be the first lifeforms on the planet and they, eventually, colonized the oceans and adapted to the new conditions in the shallower waters. If this is where life began, life on earth is even older than previously thought. This is how science works. Good scientists use evidence to establish hypotheses, and then test, or observe, to see if there is evidence to support those hypotheses. You must have an open mind to do this. There is a big difference between not knowing what I am talking about, and choosing not to talk about it. There are plenty of books to be read that go into great detail about science and the scripture. I am sure, that as well read as you are, and a lover of knowledge that you claim, that you would find these volumes enlightening. You may not agree with them, but please don't limit yourself to the base of knowledge you have acknowledged so far. As far as myself, I opened the can of worms, knowing that it would likely attract a feeding frenzy. That did not mean I intended to jump into the water myself. If you notice, you will find that I have limited my own participation in this thread since then. I figured I would learn more by doing more listening. I realize that this is a subject that some can not resist getting into a real bruhahhah over. Personally I doubt that anything that any of us say in this forum, is the last word on most any subject, and certainly not this subject, but it appears that some think so of themselves. I just like to have a good time getting to know folks a little better, sometimes at my expense, sometimes at theirs. I don't think of it as trolling, because I am still here, checking other subjects, and I love paddling to boot and a good laugh now and then when folks get so serious. So, let's go back to the bible, then. "Judge not lest you be judged," for example. Ever hear that one? Keep your labels and insults to yourself and everyone will get along with you a bit better. Perhaps, over time, I could develop some respect for you. It would not be difficult to improve over what little, if any, I can currently muster. Rick Okay, let's go back to the Bible, and I capitalize the name as an acknowlegement of respect. The Bible is a great book that has been around for a long time, and stood the test of that time. And since you know at least the one scripture, "Judge not lest you be judged." Then you certainly understand that judgement takes on at least two forms. Condemnation and discernment. This scripture says don't condemn others, or you will be condemned with the same condemnation. There are plenty of other scriptures that tell us to be discerning, for example- "Be wise as the serpent, harmless as doves." So in one case, we are told not to judge, and in the other we are told to judge. Now this apparent contradiction is based on the limits of our language, and often times our unwillingness to honestly seek to resolve the conflict. There is another troubling scripture. "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." We understand that the heart is not the center of our thought process, scientifically speaking. However, the men of faith understood that the issues of life originated in our heart, the center of faith. In our culture we have emphasised science, and forgotten the heart. Ironically the word fool has to do with the inability to think at all, as in a vegetative state. So according to the scriptures, the man who says there is no God in the depths of his heart, ends up being unable to trully think at all, scientifically speaking. True scientist would have to be men of faith by definition. So do you believe there is no God? TnT |
Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted Here I thought you were an open minded liberal conservative scientist that was interested in knowledge where ever he could find it. Shame on me for assuming again. Narrowminded anti-religious scientist are well - narrowminded. Not much difference that narrowminded fundementalist that have their mind made up, no more data needed! A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and waste, and waste! TnT There you go making assumptions and giving out labels. You've done this so many times, and you haven't been right yet. Still, why should that stop you? Sadly, you know little to nothing about evolution and make statements like there are scientific "observations in the bible." What I said was, "I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science. It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would be little conflict." I did not say scientific observation, as you try to indite me of saying. Five thousand years ago, when some of the Bible record was first being written down, there were no evolutionary scientist making any sort of enlightened observations. The so called scientist did not show up until the last 4 or 5 hundred years. So any observations of the solar cycle for example were not made by scientist but by various religious types. Medical/Biology the same. Chemistry, Mathematics, you name it. All these folks made observations and tried to come up with some rational understanding of their observation. They did not have all the tools available, like telescopes and microscopes, etc. but the observations they made were often times astute and amazing. Granted they were not involved in the theoretical science that we have today, and tended to be of a more practicle subject matter for their time. But then that brings me to my point about so called science today, is often time of a theorical nature, and only recently in conflict with the scriptures. Please note, that I did not say religion. Religion has found many ways to get crosswise with truth of any vein, because it could not allow for truth outside of its own scope of vision. The scriptures are not presented as scientific document, and should not be used as such. Faith as presented in the scriptures, was not intended primarily as a support of science, nor science of faith, but as an adjunct to each other. In other words, I do not believe that they are in conflict with each other, nor dependent upon each other for veracity. It is just our limited understanding of the scripture, science, and the events that we are trying to observe, and interpret that distorts their relationship to faith and science, and results in apparent conflict. So any label of narrowmindedness that is available, is yours to wear if you choose. I still prefer to keep all my options open. I am glad that you are so well read, "the bible and the Voyage," and so well taught. I too was so taught, and not raised in a Christian home. I was not exposed to the scriptures, growing up, but to evolution. My dad was a geophysicist with Exxon, and he and I still have some rather strained conversations. However, I think that you show your lack of understanding, to say I don't know what I am talking about, you don't hardly know me to judge me! When challenged to present one, you didn't (nor could you, since they don't exist). Having read both the bible and the "Voyage of the Beagle," I can claim to have a somewhat better understanding of evolution than you. I was taught that life began on earth, in the oceans, about 2.5 billion years ago. The current thinking is that lifeforms that exist on the black smokers (volcanic effusions on the ocean floor) may be the first lifeforms on the planet and they, eventually, colonized the oceans and adapted to the new conditions in the shallower waters. If this is where life began, life on earth is even older than previously thought. This is how science works. Good scientists use evidence to establish hypotheses, and then test, or observe, to see if there is evidence to support those hypotheses. You must have an open mind to do this. There is a big difference between not knowing what I am talking about, and choosing not to talk about it. There are plenty of books to be read that go into great detail about science and the scripture. I am sure, that as well read as you are, and a lover of knowledge that you claim, that you would find these volumes enlightening. You may not agree with them, but please don't limit yourself to the base of knowledge you have acknowledged so far. As far as myself, I opened the can of worms, knowing that it would likely attract a feeding frenzy. That did not mean I intended to jump into the water myself. If you notice, you will find that I have limited my own participation in this thread since then. I figured I would learn more by doing more listening. I realize that this is a subject that some can not resist getting into a real bruhahhah over. Personally I doubt that anything that any of us say in this forum, is the last word on most any subject, and certainly not this subject, but it appears that some think so of themselves. I just like to have a good time getting to know folks a little better, sometimes at my expense, sometimes at theirs. I don't think of it as trolling, because I am still here, checking other subjects, and I love paddling to boot and a good laugh now and then when folks get so serious. So, let's go back to the bible, then. "Judge not lest you be judged," for example. Ever hear that one? Keep your labels and insults to yourself and everyone will get along with you a bit better. Perhaps, over time, I could develop some respect for you. It would not be difficult to improve over what little, if any, I can currently muster. Rick Okay, let's go back to the Bible, and I capitalize the name as an acknowlegement of respect. The Bible is a great book that has been around for a long time, and stood the test of that time. And since you know at least the one scripture, "Judge not lest you be judged." Then you certainly understand that judgement takes on at least two forms. Condemnation and discernment. This scripture says don't condemn others, or you will be condemned with the same condemnation. There are plenty of other scriptures that tell us to be discerning, for example- "Be wise as the serpent, harmless as doves." So in one case, we are told not to judge, and in the other we are told to judge. Now this apparent contradiction is based on the limits of our language, and often times our unwillingness to honestly seek to resolve the conflict. There is another troubling scripture. "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." We understand that the heart is not the center of our thought process, scientifically speaking. However, the men of faith understood that the issues of life originated in our heart, the center of faith. In our culture we have emphasised science, and forgotten the heart. Ironically the word fool has to do with the inability to think at all, as in a vegetative state. So according to the scriptures, the man who says there is no God in the depths of his heart, ends up being unable to trully think at all, scientifically speaking. True scientist would have to be men of faith by definition. So do you believe there is no God? TnT |
Wilko wrote: Lynn Tegrity wrote: If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be powerful and so influential in the world. If the U.S. was more like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have had so many wars involving the U.S. and so many dirty wars started because of the U.S. influence. If all the other countries in the world was more like the US then we would not be the most powerful and influential country in the world because they would be the US's equal. There used to be the Soviets, who had the military advantage up untill the late seventies, and right now China and the EU are catching up with the U.S. economically with big steps. If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars. The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best for our country, not what is best for other countries. The citizens of most countries vote for what is good for them, however, there is not necessarily a discrepancy between voting what is good for you and what can also be good for most other people. The joke is that the citizens of the U.S. have a tendncy to vote for what seems to be good for them right now, conveniently forgetting the long term detrimental effects, or pushing their long term negative effects down the throats of future generations. Very egoistical thinking that will burden your children, grandchildren and maybe even more with the irresponsible financial and environmental behaviour of the current generation. Talking about behaving anti-socially... The world should not dictate to the US what type of government we have. The world won't, the rest of the world will just start to recognise it for the selfish double standard lying warmongers that the U.S. administration really is. The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our strong economy. What strong economy? It's a watered down version of what could be done to do the very least to limit the wholesale destruction and pollution of our environment. Since the average U.S. citizen uses up five times as much energy per person as the rest of the western world and causes a similarly staggering amount of pollution that isn't just limited to the U.S., who are you to tell others that you can keep going on this egoistical course without doing anything to limit the impact for everyone else? Do you also drive your car through your neighbour's lawn, throwing your spent BBQ ashes over his fence after sending the smoke over into his garden where the clean launndry was drying and their children were playing, ignoring their outcry, because you simply don't care what they think or say? One day you will need that neighbour, who has been stupid enough to keep the company that you work at afloat with his investment money for so long and they will not help you because you didn't treat them with respect for so long. The U.S. debt is skyrocketing, the trade balance is losing roughly a billion and a half dollars a day and the only way that you will keep afloat is with the help of those insane enough to think that by investing even more money into that bottomless pit that your economy has become, it will return their previous investments. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. economy crash will happen within my lifetime. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ So what do you think anyone should do about Syria? TnT |
Tnt says:
================ So what do you think anyone should do about Syria? ====================== Anyone? Well for starters, let's see if there's anything that needs doing. Before anything is done, ask "For what problem is this a solution?" And even if you think you've got an answer to that question, stop and ask another: "Why is this a problem?" Finally, before you take the next step: "What evidence do we have that this is a problem?" Finally, be sure the right people are asking these questions. I'd say these questions belong in a global forum. frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tnt says: ================ So what do you think anyone should do about Syria? ====================== Anyone? Well for starters, let's see if there's anything that needs doing. Before anything is done, ask "For what problem is this a solution?" And even if you think you've got an answer to that question, stop and ask another: "Why is this a problem?" Finally, before you take the next step: "What evidence do we have that this is a problem?" Finally, be sure the right people are asking these questions. I'd say these questions belong in a global forum. frtzw906 This is a start of at a global forum, and before anything happened, and before all the prognosticators started up their prognostification machines, I wanted to start asking questions. See if I could get some commitment to principles at least. The "anything and anyone part" is still open for sure. The "For what problem is this a solution?" question is one of the possible "anythings." What are the answers that you have to your own questions? Since you in Canada and Europe do not have your eyes blinded by the light of your own super power brightness and importance like us in USA. Do you see the bombing in Lebanon as a problem, a symptom of a problem, anything to do with Syria? Maybe just a gas line blew up, and we should all go home? Who are the right people to be asking and answering these questions? Certainly not us on this forum, but then who? We can ask, but our answers may be a bit short and uninformed! TnT |
On 18-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
What I said was, [...] Most of what you say in this post is perfectly reasonable. It represents what many mainstream religions practice (See previous post by me to Weiser about the RC support of science vs faith). Science is about the physical universe; faith, about the spiritual world. They are independent in that one cannot prove anything about the spiritual world with experiments in the physical world. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists of many persuasions can't deal with this. Mike |
On 17-Feb-2005, Lynn Tegrity wrote:
The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our strong economy. The Kyoto Accord is an example of people trying to get other people to take some responsibility for their actions. Mike |
On 17-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
Is there any conceivable reason that you would change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your conclusions. You misinterpret my statements. I agree with your statements to the effect that the physical world and the spiritual world are separate. We can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God - hence I am an agnostic. Note that agnosticism is not the same thing as atheism. As far as Christianity goes - I was raised a Christian but cannot justify what I see going on around me in the name of Christ (or God). I also cannot see why any one religion (or creation myth) should be any more believable than any other. My opposition to religion does not affect my personal beliefs. If there was a religion that was reasonable and honest, I might find it possible to follow their teachings. Mike |
Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is "the truth." If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey, according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far beyond what they are today. They haven't. Read Dawkins "the blind Watch Maker" Anyway anyone who has read "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" will know that the white mice run the world as a great big organic experiment -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
Michael Daly wrote: On 18-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: What I said was, [...] Most of what you say in this post is perfectly reasonable. It represents what many mainstream religions practice (See previous post by me to Weiser about the RC support of science vs faith). Science is about the physical universe; faith, about the spiritual world. They are independent in that one cannot prove anything about the spiritual world with experiments in the physical world. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists of many persuasions can't deal with this. Mike Fortunately, I am not of the "many persuasions", unfortunately for them as some of them have found found out. If you think I have been a pain in your rear, try being them when I have them in my signts! Hehehe! Now that can be fun! TnT |
Michael Daly wrote: On 17-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Is there any conceivable reason that you would change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your conclusions. You misinterpret my statements. I agree with your statements to the effect that the physical world and the spiritual world are separate. We can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God - hence I am an agnostic. Note that agnosticism is not the same thing as atheism. As far as Christianity goes - I was raised a Christian but cannot justify what I see going on around me in the name of Christ (or God). I also cannot see why any one religion (or creation myth) should be any more believable than any other. My opposition to religion does not affect my personal beliefs. If there was a religion that was reasonable and honest, I might find it possible to follow their teachings. Mike Thanks for your candid espression of a very personal subject, I will look forward to further discussions. TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a single definition of a single law of science. Could you please post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Do you have an alternate theory? One of the standard techniques of the anti-science crowd is to construct a strawman version of a supposed theory and then attack that. They often ignore or misunderstand the real science that is understood and practiced by scientists. (This from a study by a York University professor - I can dig up his name and possibly the publication of the study if you're desperately in need of satisfaction.) I stand by my original post. Which simply dismisses intelligent design while touting evolution without explaining your version of evolution and without a rational analysis of my question as to why sharks are still sharks 400 million years down the evolutionary line. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I never suggested that I did. On the contrary - you keep insisting that Americans are free because of their constitution and that everyone else is a slave. No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms, not because of the Constitution. In fact, the constitution does not guarantee freedom. it only provides for it as long as there are enough people to defend it. Precisely correct, which is why the Framers were careful to limit the power of government to disarm the people, in order that the people would always have in their possession the arms needed to overthrow a tyrant, should one arise. People change. True, but rights don't. There used to be widespread support for kings and queens and people fought to the death to defend them. Now some defend constitutions. American is not the first example of democracy - democracy has been known to disappear in the past. Indeed. Democracy is a very bad thing in its pure form, which is why it tends to disappear. Our unique addition is the representative system and the system of checks and balances, along with a resolve to ensure that all citizens be sufficiently armed so as to dissuade the disappearance of our system. It proves that you are slaves to those who do have guns. We are not slaves to anyone and we have a constitution that protects us as much as yours. As you so aptly said just above, "democracy has been known to disappear in the past." The question is not whether you have a constitution, it's whether you have the physical power to enforce the protection of your rights offered by a constitution. If you don't have that power because you have allowed your government to take away your fundamental human right to keep and bear arms, and you have allowed the government to control, restrict and deny you arms, then you have no power whatsoever other than that which your government allows you to exercise. Unlike the US, your government does not require (though it may, for a time agree to) the consent of the governed. All it takes is one demogog or a corrupt military and you'll be living under a military junta just like Burma or any other banana republic because you do not have the arms required to overthrow a tyrant and retake your nation. That is a simple fact that applies to every single nation on the planet that denies its citizens arms...for whatever purportedly altruistic reason. The pen is mightier than the sword and always has been. It's only mightier than the sword when there are sufficiency of swords available to defend the ability of the pen to write. Absent that protection, the pen just gets driven into your ear canal with a mallet and your body is dumped into a mass grave along with the rest of the "counter-revolutionaries." Just ask the Cambodians. If you don't seize and vigorously defend and exercise your human right to keep and bear arms, you are a slave to those who do have arms. There is no doubt whatever about it. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com