Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes

Steve Peterson wrote:
>
> >
> There are several hundred indigenous languages spoken in India, and many of
> them can't communicate unless they use a common language like English.
> Almost anything that needs to reach a broad part of the population must be
> in English to be understood, and it is the language taught in school and
> serves as a mark of education.
>

The national language of India is English.

--

FF

On 11 Oct 2005 11:30:27 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>George wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent of
>> > any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the "right"
>> > one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that they're
>> > all wrong :-).
>>
>> Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.
>>
>> Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative number
>> of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
>> establish the percentages.
>
>You think about it. He's taking his chances amongst religions, not the
>number of adherents in any one or gorup of religions. Thus, 20, pick
>one, 5% shot at being right (actually, no, because there are those who
>claim none of the religions is right, but that's another tale).


consider that most if not all religions started out as the rantings
of an individual- the number of followers at any given time is
irrelevant. thus the odds of picking the right religion must be
distributed amongst not only all religions that have ever been but all
religions that ever might be. while that number can't be infinite, it
must be very large. thus the odds must be very small.

so pick the religion that entertains you the most- it's as good a
criterion as any.

Bokononism, anyone?
http://bernd.wechner.info/Bokononism/dictionary.html

how about FSM:
http://www.venganza.org/

Odinn wrote:
> On 10/12/2005 10:15 PM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
>
>> Odinn wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> Umm, but Christianity accepts the existance of other religions.
>>>
>>> First commandment - Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>>>
>>> There is the admittance of other gods, namely the Roman, Greek, and
>>> Teutonic gods, right there in the bible.
>>>
>>
>> You desparate need a good history book. The Ten Commandments
>> were written considerably *before* any Roman, Greek, or Teutonic
>> (Fritz, The God Of Pretzels?) came upon the scene ... About
>> 4-6 *thousand* years before depending on whose dating you accept.
>
>
> I think you better check again on your timeline. Moses was the one who
> supposedly wrote Exodus, which contains the commandments, and that would
> have been approx 1500 BCE, which is barely 3500 years ago, so it could

Sez you. The dating of the ancient Hebrew texts is in some considerable
dispute. Moreover there is a gap in the dating of the *events* described
and the actual writing of the documents (at least some hold that it is
a *big* gap). But in any case, whosever dates you accept, it well
precedes the Greek, Roman, and Teutonic gods.

> not have been written 4-6 thousand years before the Roman or Greek gods.
> So we'll just skip the Roman and Greek gods and just say pagan gods.

Right, the commandment is noteworthy specifically because it is the
first recording of monotheism. But to your original comment, early Judaism
(not Christianity) did *not* stipulate that there were other gods but more
specifically that the other gods were false. You get this from a reading
not just of the commandment you cited but the larger body of Hebrew
Biblical literature. By the time Christianity showed up, this monotheism
was assumed.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Charlie Self wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
> > > > Conception or Reception.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll accept that for Franco Harris's conotribution, but I do not KNOW
> > > that for immaculate conception. Somebody's fingertips (speaking
> > > metaphorically) were almost certainly on the ball, IMO.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > The dogma of the Immaculate Conception presumes that Joachim and
> > Anne (or whoever they were) 'did it' just like anyone else.
> >
> > You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
> > Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
> > why not check it out?
> >
> > BTW, have you figured out why the Indians you know speak English
> > so well?
>
> Parthenogenesis is the closest thing I've seen to a rational
> explanation, so, without that, we've got religious nonsense, something
> I get sufficient of on a daily basis in this locale.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of _Mary_
not the conception of Christ.

You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
why not check it out?

Of course it is religions nonsense, that is why science is
silent on the issue of the Immaculate Conception, and of
original sin in general, though it is not on the issue of
the virgin birth of Christ. The virgin birth of Christ is
contrary to scientific models for human reproduction. The
dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary lies entirely
outside of any scientific theory because the dogmatic
elements are entirely metaphysical.

That virgin birth is contrary to scientific models for human
reproduction might at first seem to be a conflict between
religion and science. But religion has a simple concept
to avoid that--the miracle, or if you prefer, Intelligent
Design of the Saviour.

>
> I have no idea why the few Indians I know locally speak English
> reasonably well. Part of it is that they've now been in this area for 6
> or 7 years, I guess, and, like most of us, pick up the local patois.
> ...

What language do you suppose they spoke in India?

--

FF

George wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent of
> > any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the "right"
> > one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that they're
> > all wrong :-).
>
> Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.
>
> Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative number
> of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
> establish the percentages.

You think about it. He's taking his chances amongst religions, not the
number of adherents in any one or gorup of religions. Thus, 20, pick
one, 5% shot at being right (actually, no, because there are those who
claim none of the religions is right, but that's another tale).

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "George" <George@least> writes:
> >
> >"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> George wrote:
> >>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>> > IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent
> >>> > of
> >>> > any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the
> >>> > "right"
> >>> > one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that
> >>> > they're
> >>> > all wrong :-).
> >>>
> >>> Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.
> >>>
> >>> Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative
> >>> number
> >>> of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
> >>> establish the percentages.
> >>
> >> You think about it. He's taking his chances amongst religions, not the
> >> number of adherents in any one or gorup of religions. Thus, 20, pick
> >> one, 5% shot at being right (actually, no, because there are those who
> >> claim none of the religions is right, but that's another tale).
> >
> >More than twenty and most admit others are just different paths to the same
> >destination, so weak even there.
> >
>
> Cite please for the "most admit" part?
>
> Fundamentally (no pun intended), a religion that accepts the existence
> of another religion undermines itself. Particularly, if Christians
> accept Islam as a religion, it throws doubt on Christ as the son of god.
>

The Catholic Church today aknowledges the doctrine of ecumenism,
that persons of all faiths may achieve slavation through adherence
to their faith, even if their creed is 'flawed'.

Dunno about the others.

The only formal excomunication of the 20th century was of the
French Archbishop Lefevre, who pissed off the Pope by rejecting
the reforms of the Vatican II conference, including the doctrine
of ecumenism.

--

FF

George wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > George wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
> >> mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
> >> one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple
> >> in the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities
> >> ....
> >>
> >
> > First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many times
> > in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.
> >
>
> If there is a true religion in your estimation, you should be out searching
> and serving, not expressing doubt. Confuses people when you are a deist and
> can't recognize god....

How does not claiming to know God's form and every desire confuse
people?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
> the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
> suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
> be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
> of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.
>

1500 BC is around the time of Amenhotep who advocated monotheism
in Egypt and is also around the time of Zoraster (though last I
heard THAT was in dispute). So it appears the idea enjoyed
widespread popularity.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >>
> >>I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
> >>the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
> >>suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
> >>be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
> >>of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 1500 BC is around the time of Amenhotep who advocated monotheism
> > in Egypt and is also around the time of Zoraster (though last I
> > heard THAT was in dispute). So it appears the idea enjoyed
> > widespread popularity.
> >
>
> Well ... if you accept that idea that the Pentateuch records
> events that well-precede 1500 BCE then it is recording the
> first known instance of declared monotheism...
>

You would also have to assume that the Pentateuch is accurate
on that issue, with respect to whatever preceded it, lost
writings or oral traditions. Revisionism is not a new
concept.

--

FF

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well Duane, one confirmation is all that is necessary to affirm what I
> >feared. I do offer my apologies. I had hoped that by establishing
myself
> >in the manner that I did at the outset, that I would have laid a
groundwork
> >to be less concerned for how I posted things, and adopt a conversational
> >manner. Clearly this is not the case. The tidbits were just my way of
> >getting the things I was aware of out there at what seemed like an
> >appropriate point.
>
> Problem is, you're "aware of" things that have no basis in fact. Like the
cave
> paintings of dinosaurs.
>

Well - I can assure you there are a large number of people like me in that
respect. One of the problems with anything that we don't really follow or
stay abreast of is that the things we hear, or read, or encounter tend to
stick with us and often times at the peril of having been proven to be wrong
a long time ago. For those of us that don't stay abreast of this stuff, we
often don't even know what has been proven to be wrong, false, etc. So...
we bring up what we do "know". It's not in attempt to impress a fact, it's
in attempt to be part of the conversation. Though it's only at a layman
level, there is within most of us a desire to pick up a little something as
we participate in these types of things.

Having said all of that - just what is the purpose of your comment Doug? I
had just acknowledged that I had poorly articulated my thoughts, apologized
and tried to explain (briefly) that my real intent was far different from
that which I had apparently caused some to believe. You chime in with your
comment which to be frank is pure bullshit. The implication in your
statement is that there is a problem in being poorly informed on a matter.
I suggest you leave yourself open to a large amount of ridicule if that's
your position on things.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"BadgerDog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Mike,
>
> At the risk of belaboring a point I'll try to illustrate why I think some
of
> your comments were viewed as "statements" as opposed to a dialogue of
> questioning.
>

BadgerDog:

I too wish to not belabor the point. It is true that like beauty,
interpretation is "in the eye of the beholder". I accept the responsibility
that if I want to be understood in a certain manner, the ultimate
responsibility is on my shoulders to make sure that I articulate in such a
way as to ensure that outcome. My mistake was in assuming that I had
purchased a certain literary license for myself by stating my lack of
qualifications up front, and that I could be more lax in my presentation
than it turns out was acceptable. I appreciate your candor and your
comments.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Got it, first try.

"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Peterson wrote:
> ...
>> There are several hundred indigenous languages spoken in India, and many
>> of
>> them can't communicate unless they use a common language like English.
>> Almost anything that needs to reach a broad part of the population must
>> be
>> in English to be understood, and it is the language taught in school and
>> serves as a mark of education.
>
> I don't suppose it having been a British colony for a hundred years or
> so had anything to do with it...

[email protected] wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
>>the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
>>suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
>>be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
>>of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.
>>
>
>
> 1500 BC is around the time of Amenhotep who advocated monotheism
> in Egypt and is also around the time of Zoraster (though last I
> heard THAT was in dispute). So it appears the idea enjoyed
> widespread popularity.
>

Well ... if you accept that idea that the Pentateuch records
events that well-precede 1500 BCE then it is recording the
first known instance of declared monotheism...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Steve Peterson wrote:
...
> There are several hundred indigenous languages spoken in India, and many of
> them can't communicate unless they use a common language like English.
> Almost anything that needs to reach a broad part of the population must be
> in English to be understood, and it is the language taught in school and
> serves as a mark of education.

I don't suppose it having been a British colony for a hundred years or
so had anything to do with it...

George wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Steve Peterson wrote:
> > ...
> >> There are several hundred indigenous languages spoken in India, and many
> >> of
> >> them can't communicate unless they use a common language like English.
> >> Almost anything that needs to reach a broad part of the population must
> >> be
> >> in English to be understood, and it is the language taught in school and
> >> serves as a mark of education.
> >
> > I don't suppose it having been a British colony for a hundred years or
> > so had anything to do with it...
>
> Probably wanted to avoid elevating any one linguistic group of Hindus or
> Moslems by making their language the state language. English was
> convenient. Turns out to have been a good choice.

Knowing the English at that time, I doubt that had much to do with it.
:)

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
...

> ... I'm not equipped to do battle in this area, so I
> make no attempt to. I have questions - mostly based on things I'd heard or
> read along the way over the years and I thow them out in attempt to
> reconcile that information with what's being said currently. Unfortunately,
> this seems to be bothersome.

It's as much or more the way you've thrown out the tidbits you've
done--as if they're facts and w/o doing apparently the least be of
rational thinking about whether there is any plausible basis for them...

...

> Usenet is a difficult medium in that the written word lacks any of the
> indicators to differentiate an attempted statment of fact from a question...

Only if the poster posts a question in a declarative form. A question
in English ends in a question mark and includes an interogative form,
not declarative. At least the posts of yours I read lacked both.
Hence, it's not at all surprising they were taken as declaratives and a
statement of personal belief.
...

BadgerDog wrote:
>
> Lastly, I will point out that like you, I am not an expert in the field but
> have ofetn found the topic interesting. And that I'm a fan of science, as
> well as woodworking (there, now that I've mentioned woodworking it's not
> completely OT).
>

If you wnat a really interesting topic, somewhat related to ID, consider
how most people pick their religion. Most people don't. They just
assume the faith of their parents or of the culture they grew up in,
with little or no knowledge of other faiths. The opposite of the
scientific method :-).

How many Christians can explain where their religion differs from
Shinto? And vice versa?

IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent
of any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the
"right" one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility
that they're all wrong :-).

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent of
> any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the "right"
> one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that they're
> all wrong :-).

Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.

Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative number
of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
establish the percentages.

"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Peterson wrote:
> ...
>> There are several hundred indigenous languages spoken in India, and many
>> of
>> them can't communicate unless they use a common language like English.
>> Almost anything that needs to reach a broad part of the population must
>> be
>> in English to be understood, and it is the language taught in school and
>> serves as a mark of education.
>
> I don't suppose it having been a British colony for a hundred years or
> so had anything to do with it...

Probably wanted to avoid elevating any one linguistic group of Hindus or
Moslems by making their language the state language. English was
convenient. Turns out to have been a good choice.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent
>> > of
>> > any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the
>> > "right"
>> > one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that
>> > they're
>> > all wrong :-).
>>
>> Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.
>>
>> Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative
>> number
>> of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
>> establish the percentages.
>
> You think about it. He's taking his chances amongst religions, not the
> number of adherents in any one or gorup of religions. Thus, 20, pick
> one, 5% shot at being right (actually, no, because there are those who
> claim none of the religions is right, but that's another tale).

More than twenty and most admit others are just different paths to the same
destination, so weak even there.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Right, the commandment is noteworthy specifically because it is the
> first recording of monotheism. But to your original comment, early
> Judaism
> (not Christianity) did *not* stipulate that there were other gods but more
> specifically that the other gods were false. You get this from a reading
> not just of the commandment you cited but the larger body of Hebrew
> Biblical literature. By the time Christianity showed up, this monotheism
> was assumed.

Well, it's a case of faith versus reference again. If you accept that
"pharaoh" is Rameses, 1500 is the proper time. Of course, the books
themselves were written down considerably later, in an attempt to
consolidate and codify legend and practice.

Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple in
the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities ....

Polytheistic religions propitiate many gods one at a time in an attempt to
gain a better harvest, freedom from disease, male offspring, or an erection.
These gods apparently do not exchange information, so as to gain a larger
share of the total service. Monotheistic religions feature a universal code
of behavior - laws - which, if followed, will release the soul to a paradise
which has everything, rather than just "consciousness", or in some of the
Christian sects, salvation by words or "grace", not deeds.

Why study them? Because each, though different, has either shaped a culture
or been shaped by a culture to serve the universal need of the creature. The
creature strives to do or be better, and collect a reward for it, rather
than live in a cold mathematically-governed universe in which there is no
beginning or end, and life, which means so much to the one living it, is in
reality meaningless, because nothing so/he says or does can influence the
end.

George wrote:
>
>
> Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
> mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
> one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple in
> the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities ....
>

First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many
times in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.

And I was including both mono and poly religions. Sounds like a disease
and a (diseased) finish :-).

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
>>
>>
>> Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
>> mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
>> one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple
>> in the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities
>> ....
>>
>
> First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many times
> in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.
>

If there is a true religion in your estimation, you should be out searching
and serving, not expressing doubt. Confuses people when you are a deist and
can't recognize god....

George wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many times
>>in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.
>>
>
> If there is a true religion in your estimation, you should be out searching
> and serving, not expressing doubt. Confuses people when you are a deist and
> can't recognize god....
>

I'm not a deist either - can you say "agnostic?"

You seem determined to (incorrectly) categorize me - or are you just
trolling?

"BadgerDog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Maybe I can provide some insights for you.
>
> I agree that the term Fundi is being used in a derogatory manner.
However,
> I don't think the comment is an attack on faith in general. There are
many
> people of faith (including Christians) that accept the scientific method
and
> do not have a problem reconciling science with their religion.

Agreed. I include myself in that group.

> I think that
> the Fundi term is being used to refer to the small minority of people that
> demand a literal interpretation of the bible. This literal interpretation
> is often at odds with the scientific community and there are a wide range
of
> arguments that the "Fundis" make that defy rational thought in order to
> "rationalize" their views. On a side note, one of my favorites is the one
> that states that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
This
> is one of my favorites because the argument is easily shown to be false
and
> doesn't require interpretation of past events based on rather minimal
> evidence. So, the "Fundi" term does not imply that people of faith are
> somehow lessor people, but it does imply that people with blind faith, in
> the presence of conflicting scientific observations, are irrational.

I'm aware of that, and it's why I take offense at the comment. As I stated
on a couple of occassions, I'm not equipped to do battle in this area, so I
make no attempt to. I have questions - mostly based on things I'd heard or
read along the way over the years and I thow them out in attempt to
reconcile that information with what's being said currently. Unfortunately,
this seems to be bothersome.

>
> It looks like you were called a "Fundi" because you were making assertions
> without being able to back them up (a common tactic used by "Fundis"). I
> respect that you later acknowledged that you further researched the topics
> and no longer stood by them. However, I hope that you understand why you
> should not be stating these arguments as "facts". I know that you
> ackowledged that you were not an expert, but it would have been better if
> you ASKED about these topics (e.g. haven't there been cases where tracks
> from man and dinosaurs were found together) instead of stating them as
> facts.

Usenet is a difficult medium in that the written word lacks any of the
indicators to differentiate an attempted statment of fact from a question
asked in different forms. Having read your comment above I went back and
reviewed everthing I posted in this and the related threads. My fear was
that in assuming that I was engaging in conversation, it may have come
across that I was attempting to state fact, when what I was attempting to do
was be conversational instead of taking the more unpleasant approach that
has been prominent in these threads. It remains that I can't see anywhere
where I took a factual position. I made statements under the umbrella of my
lack of knowledge that I assumed would make it clear that I was being
conversational instead of confrontational. Stating fact? Really - a guy
who comes into this type of discussion with the opening statement that he's
not qualified in any way, does not try to state fact. Readers on the other
hand, with a little too much angst may mis-read what has been written.
Communication is dependent upon two factors - the speaker and the hearer.

>
>
> Now for a couple of comments related to the original topic: intelligent
> design:
>
> I think that there is a backlash against ID for multiple reasons, but to
me
> the the most basic reason is that it is essentially ANTI-science posing as
> science. The scientific approach is one that constantly questions itself
> and tries to further test itself to the point of breaking, because it is
> often at these breaking points where a deeper level of understanding is
> developed. Note, while the breaking point can result in a complete change
> in view of how nature works, often the result is better described as a
> further refinement of our understanding as opposed to a rejection of the
> preceding model (e.g. classical mechanics still explains many thing quite
> well even though quantum mechanics can explain nature better at the
extreme
> where classical mechanics fails). Science is constantly trying to better
> understand nature and explain the un-explained. Although it may not be
> explicitly stated, I think there is an underlying assumption that the
> natural world follows natural laws and that science will keep trying to
> understand in greater and greater detail how the natural world works.
> Implicit in this assumption is that the super-natural is outside the realm
> of science; the super-natural cannot be tested nor explained by science.
> That is, relying on a super-natural explanation is a "cop-out" and not
> allowed in science. The whole premise of intelligent design is
essentially
> this same cop-out: something is too complex and therefore requires a
> designer (i.e. super-natural involvment). Hopefully you can see why I say
> that this approach is ANTI-science.
>

Well stated, and thank you. Interestingly - your statement regarding the
reiterative process of science examining itself and its holdings is
strikingly in line with the practice of faith. It is what keeps some from
becoming the blinders on fundi that is referred to here.

> Granted, MAYBE there is a designer, but the field of intelligent design is
> NOT science. I would make the argument that science is inherently limited
> by the fact that it cannot evaluate the super-natural. I will point out
> that throughout history science has done very well at explaining things
that
> were once thought to be super-natural, in terms of the natural world. I
> will acknowledge that science will probably never explain everything, and
if
> there are super-natural forces it will not be able to explain them.
> However, this limitation does not justify replacing science with
> ANTI-science.

Agreed again. I have said a couple of times that I do not believe ID is a
science nor should it be taught in a science class. I believe it is a real
factor in our existence, but as you state, it cannot be in keeping with the
practices of science, so it should not be force fit into a science world.

>
> I think that most scientists would agree with my assessment, but might be
> reluctant to admit these limnitations of science. Unfortunately I think
> people get too polarized and don't want to admit to any limitations
because
> any "chinks in the armor" are attacked unmercifully by others with their
own
> agendas. For example, if you look at the various Creationist arguments,
> they nit-pick at various details of the evolutionary theory. They seem to
> be based on the strategy that if ANY small part of the evolutionary theory
> can be called into question, then Evolution is out and Creationism will be
> accepted by default. Even this approach shows a complete lack of
> understanding of how science works. In particular, if we anyone can show
> errors in the evolutionary theory then the theory itself will evolve
> (science has a way of correcting and refining itself over time).
> Additionally, there is typically no scientific development of Creationism
as
> a scientific model and somehow we are just suspossed to accept it as the
> only alternative instead of pursuing a scientific explanation.

I agree again, and the chink in the armor thing is what I believe drives
most of the animosity between the camps. It's an issue for the faith folks
as much as it is for the evolution folks. For me in these threads, it is
precisely the desire to explore and understand better than I do, without a
fear of a chink in my armor that lead me to engage in the conversations. I
still don't regret having piped up, despite the frustrations here and there.
As I had stated in another post - sometimes I get something from these
things and sometimes it's just discourse. I've had a bit of both in these
threads.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Odinn wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2005 10:15 PM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the
>> following:
>>
>>> Odinn wrote:
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> Umm, but Christianity accepts the existance of other religions.
>>>>
>>>> First commandment - Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> There is the admittance of other gods, namely the Roman, Greek, and
>>>> Teutonic gods, right there in the bible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You desparate need a good history book. The Ten Commandments
>>> were written considerably *before* any Roman, Greek, or Teutonic
>>> (Fritz, The God Of Pretzels?) came upon the scene ... About
>>> 4-6 *thousand* years before depending on whose dating you accept.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you better check again on your timeline. Moses was the one
>> who supposedly wrote Exodus, which contains the commandments, and that
>> would have been approx 1500 BCE, which is barely 3500 years ago, so it
>> could
>
>
> Sez you. The dating of the ancient Hebrew texts is in some considerable
> dispute. Moreover there is a gap in the dating of the *events* described
> and the actual writing of the documents (at least some hold that it is
> a *big* gap). But in any case, whosever dates you accept, it well
> precedes the Greek, Roman, and Teutonic gods.
>

I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:59:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >>
> >> > Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's
bunk?
> >> > Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I
> >didn't
> >> > see any claims against the stuff.
> >> >
> >> Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
> >> one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?
> >
> >Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this for
> >the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an
intent
> >to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these
things
> >and sometimes it's just discourse.
>
>
> actually, it sounds like you just mouthing off, making wild fundie
> claims and not being able to back them up.
>

Not at all. The basic truth of the matter is that the whole topic is
something that has never been a compelling interest to me, but has at the
same time held a mild curiosity within me. As a result of it not having
been a compelling interest, I largely ignored it with the exception of being
only casually aware of some claims from both sides. I didn't know for
example that the dinosaur/man tracks in Texas had been brought into question
by even those who had originally supported the finds until this thread. I
remembered hearing about it a long time ago and it just kind of stuck in my
mind. So, I threw it out there to see what the answers would be regarding
it. To the extent that I have a casual interest in the stuff, this served a
purpose for me. Likewise with the cave paintings.

Not trying to stir anything up or make wild fundie claims. Just inquiring a
bit from a standpoint of being a not very studied individual on the matter.
That's why I explained that in the very beginning. I will say that from my
uneducated perspective, the wild claims are not limited to fundies.

Sorry if I intruded on a thread that is limited to those with higher degrees
in these studies. I asked genuine questions, attempted to be civil in my
approach, and only varied from that when I got fed up with some of the
condescending attitudes that popped up from time to time.

Fundi - hmmmmm. Again, I'd have to ask what you mean by that. It's the
second time a derogatory term has been tossed out inferring that having a
faith is somehow the mark of a lesser man. I haven't given any indication
of what my faith includes and you'd probably be surprised if you knew it.
It certainly does not include a closed mind. But then again one with a
closed mind does not enter into these discussion with questions, and even
admissions of his own error, now does he?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 10/12/2005 10:15 PM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
> Odinn wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Umm, but Christianity accepts the existance of other religions.
>>
>> First commandment - Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>>
>> There is the admittance of other gods, namely the Roman, Greek, and
>> Teutonic gods, right there in the bible.
>>
>
> You desparate need a good history book. The Ten Commandments
> were written considerably *before* any Roman, Greek, or Teutonic
> (Fritz, The God Of Pretzels?) came upon the scene ... About
> 4-6 *thousand* years before depending on whose dating you accept.

I think you better check again on your timeline. Moses was the one who
supposedly wrote Exodus, which contains the commandments, and that would
have been approx 1500 BCE, which is barely 3500 years ago, so it could
not have been written 4-6 thousand years before the Roman or Greek gods.
So we'll just skip the Roman and Greek gods and just say pagan gods.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:59:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's
> bunk?
>> >> > Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I
>> >didn't
>> >> > see any claims against the stuff.
>> >> >
>> >> Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
>> >> one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?
>> >
>> >Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this
>> >for
>> >the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an
> intent
>> >to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these
> things
>> >and sometimes it's just discourse.
>>
>>
>> actually, it sounds like you just mouthing off, making wild fundie
>> claims and not being able to back them up.
>>
>
> Not at all. The basic truth of the matter is that the whole topic is
> something that has never been a compelling interest to me, but has at the
> same time held a mild curiosity within me. As a result of it not having
> been a compelling interest, I largely ignored it with the exception of
> being
> only casually aware of some claims from both sides. I didn't know for
> example that the dinosaur/man tracks in Texas had been brought into
> question
> by even those who had originally supported the finds until this thread. I
> remembered hearing about it a long time ago and it just kind of stuck in
> my
> mind. So, I threw it out there to see what the answers would be regarding
> it. To the extent that I have a casual interest in the stuff, this served
> a
> purpose for me. Likewise with the cave paintings.
>
> Not trying to stir anything up or make wild fundie claims. Just inquiring
> a
> bit from a standpoint of being a not very studied individual on the
> matter.
> That's why I explained that in the very beginning. I will say that from
> my
> uneducated perspective, the wild claims are not limited to fundies.
>
> Sorry if I intruded on a thread that is limited to those with higher
> degrees
> in these studies. I asked genuine questions, attempted to be civil in my
> approach, and only varied from that when I got fed up with some of the
> condescending attitudes that popped up from time to time.
>
> Fundi - hmmmmm. Again, I'd have to ask what you mean by that. It's the
> second time a derogatory term has been tossed out inferring that having a
> faith is somehow the mark of a lesser man. I haven't given any indication
> of what my faith includes and you'd probably be surprised if you knew it.
> It certainly does not include a closed mind. But then again one with a
> closed mind does not enter into these discussion with questions, and even
> admissions of his own error, now does he?
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
>
Hi Mike,

Maybe I can provide some insights for you.

I agree that the term Fundi is being used in a derogatory manner. However,
I don't think the comment is an attack on faith in general. There are many
people of faith (including Christians) that accept the scientific method and
do not have a problem reconciling science with their religion. I think that
the Fundi term is being used to refer to the small minority of people that
demand a literal interpretation of the bible. This literal interpretation
is often at odds with the scientific community and there are a wide range of
arguments that the "Fundis" make that defy rational thought in order to
"rationalize" their views. On a side note, one of my favorites is the one
that states that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This
is one of my favorites because the argument is easily shown to be false and
doesn't require interpretation of past events based on rather minimal
evidence. So, the "Fundi" term does not imply that people of faith are
somehow lessor people, but it does imply that people with blind faith, in
the presence of conflicting scientific observations, are irrational.

It looks like you were called a "Fundi" because you were making assertions
without being able to back them up (a common tactic used by "Fundis"). I
respect that you later acknowledged that you further researched the topics
and no longer stood by them. However, I hope that you understand why you
should not be stating these arguments as "facts". I know that you
ackowledged that you were not an expert, but it would have been better if
you ASKED about these topics (e.g. haven't there been cases where tracks
from man and dinosaurs were found together) instead of stating them as
facts.


Now for a couple of comments related to the original topic: intelligent
design:

I think that there is a backlash against ID for multiple reasons, but to me
the the most basic reason is that it is essentially ANTI-science posing as
science. The scientific approach is one that constantly questions itself
and tries to further test itself to the point of breaking, because it is
often at these breaking points where a deeper level of understanding is
developed. Note, while the breaking point can result in a complete change
in view of how nature works, often the result is better described as a
further refinement of our understanding as opposed to a rejection of the
preceding model (e.g. classical mechanics still explains many thing quite
well even though quantum mechanics can explain nature better at the extreme
where classical mechanics fails). Science is constantly trying to better
understand nature and explain the un-explained. Although it may not be
explicitly stated, I think there is an underlying assumption that the
natural world follows natural laws and that science will keep trying to
understand in greater and greater detail how the natural world works.
Implicit in this assumption is that the super-natural is outside the realm
of science; the super-natural cannot be tested nor explained by science.
That is, relying on a super-natural explanation is a "cop-out" and not
allowed in science. The whole premise of intelligent design is essentially
this same cop-out: something is too complex and therefore requires a
designer (i.e. super-natural involvment). Hopefully you can see why I say
that this approach is ANTI-science.

Granted, MAYBE there is a designer, but the field of intelligent design is
NOT science. I would make the argument that science is inherently limited
by the fact that it cannot evaluate the super-natural. I will point out
that throughout history science has done very well at explaining things that
were once thought to be super-natural, in terms of the natural world. I
will acknowledge that science will probably never explain everything, and if
there are super-natural forces it will not be able to explain them.
However, this limitation does not justify replacing science with
ANTI-science.

I think that most scientists would agree with my assessment, but might be
reluctant to admit these limnitations of science. Unfortunately I think
people get too polarized and don't want to admit to any limitations because
any "chinks in the armor" are attacked unmercifully by others with their own
agendas. For example, if you look at the various Creationist arguments,
they nit-pick at various details of the evolutionary theory. They seem to
be based on the strategy that if ANY small part of the evolutionary theory
can be called into question, then Evolution is out and Creationism will be
accepted by default. Even this approach shows a complete lack of
understanding of how science works. In particular, if we anyone can show
errors in the evolutionary theory then the theory itself will evolve
(science has a way of correcting and refining itself over time).
Additionally, there is typically no scientific development of Creationism as
a scientific model and somehow we are just suspossed to accept it as the
only alternative instead of pursuing a scientific explanation.

Although Intelligent Design is not strictly Creationism, it is essentially a
dressed up form of Creationism that is still ANTI-science, even though it
pretends to be science.

Lastly, I will point out that like you, I am not an expert in the field but
have ofetn found the topic interesting. And that I'm a fan of science, as
well as woodworking (there, now that I've mentioned woodworking it's not
completely OT).

Best Regards,
BadgerDog

In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Well Duane, one confirmation is all that is necessary to affirm what I
>feared. I do offer my apologies. I had hoped that by establishing myself
>in the manner that I did at the outset, that I would have laid a groundwork
>to be less concerned for how I posted things, and adopt a conversational
>manner. Clearly this is not the case. The tidbits were just my way of
>getting the things I was aware of out there at what seemed like an
>appropriate point.

Problem is, you're "aware of" things that have no basis in fact. Like the cave
paintings of dinosaurs.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 10/12/2005 1:18 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Well Duane, one confirmation is all that is necessary to affirm what I
>>>feared. I do offer my apologies. I had hoped that by establishing
>
> myself
>
>>>in the manner that I did at the outset, that I would have laid a
>
> groundwork
>
>>>to be less concerned for how I posted things, and adopt a conversational
>>>manner. Clearly this is not the case. The tidbits were just my way of
>>>getting the things I was aware of out there at what seemed like an
>>>appropriate point.
>>
>>Problem is, you're "aware of" things that have no basis in fact. Like the
>
> cave
>
>>paintings of dinosaurs.
>>
>
>
> Well - I can assure you there are a large number of people like me in that
> respect. One of the problems with anything that we don't really follow or
> stay abreast of is that the things we hear, or read, or encounter tend to
> stick with us and often times at the peril of having been proven to be wrong
> a long time ago. For those of us that don't stay abreast of this stuff, we
> often don't even know what has been proven to be wrong, false, etc. So...
> we bring up what we do "know". It's not in attempt to impress a fact, it's
> in attempt to be part of the conversation. Though it's only at a layman
> level, there is within most of us a desire to pick up a little something as
> we participate in these types of things.
>
> Having said all of that - just what is the purpose of your comment Doug? I
> had just acknowledged that I had poorly articulated my thoughts, apologized
> and tried to explain (briefly) that my real intent was far different from
> that which I had apparently caused some to believe. You chime in with your
> comment which to be frank is pure bullshit. The implication in your
> statement is that there is a problem in being poorly informed on a matter.
> I suggest you leave yourself open to a large amount of ridicule if that's
> your position on things.
>
Mike,
If you THINK you know something, DAGS and find out before you post.
This is the easiest way from getting slammed. At least then, you have
something to back what you think you know, although there is still a
good chance it's wrong.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>Doug - you're making an ass of yourself barking because you heard the
>howling in the woods.
>
>> And I'm supposed to feel *better* now that you tell me that? Just because
>"a
>> large number of people" believe something does *not* make it true.
>
>Irrelevant. Feel as you will.

You have a curious idea of what's "relevant".
>
>>
>>
>> Then perhaps you should stay out of the debates? Certainly, if you insist
>on
>> joining in under those circumstances, you should not be surprised when you
>are
>> told that what you think you know... ain't so.
>>
>
>You clearly have no clue what you're braying about now Doug. It would
>behoove you to read what was posted before jumping off on a rant.

Huh? I've been reading the whole thread.
>
>>
>> Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of making comments on subjects on
>which
>> you *know* you are uninformed.
>
>Perhaps you should read posts before you attempt to so soundly put another
>in their place. You need the practice.

Are you responding to some other post?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Mike,
The problem here is that you stated things you think as if you knew them.
And there have been so many posts in these threads it is impossible to keep
track of an individual person's bona fides. So I suggest, not just to you,
that statements of knowledge should include references to someone who does
know, and that opinions should follow words like "I think ..." or "IMO" or
such. It will make it easier to follow.

IMHO
Steve

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Well Duane, one confirmation is all that is necessary to affirm what I
>> >feared. I do offer my apologies. I had hoped that by establishing
> myself
>> >in the manner that I did at the outset, that I would have laid a
> groundwork
>> >to be less concerned for how I posted things, and adopt a conversational
>> >manner. Clearly this is not the case. The tidbits were just my way of
>> >getting the things I was aware of out there at what seemed like an
>> >appropriate point.
>>
>> Problem is, you're "aware of" things that have no basis in fact. Like the
> cave
>> paintings of dinosaurs.
>>
>
> Well - I can assure you there are a large number of people like me in that
> respect. One of the problems with anything that we don't really follow or
> stay abreast of is that the things we hear, or read, or encounter tend to
> stick with us and often times at the peril of having been proven to be
> wrong
> a long time ago. For those of us that don't stay abreast of this stuff,
> we
> often don't even know what has been proven to be wrong, false, etc. So...
> we bring up what we do "know". It's not in attempt to impress a fact,
> it's
> in attempt to be part of the conversation. Though it's only at a layman
> level, there is within most of us a desire to pick up a little something
> as
> we participate in these types of things.
>
> Having said all of that - just what is the purpose of your comment Doug?
> I
> had just acknowledged that I had poorly articulated my thoughts,
> apologized
> and tried to explain (briefly) that my real intent was far different from
> that which I had apparently caused some to believe. You chime in with
> your
> comment which to be frank is pure bullshit. The implication in your
> statement is that there is a problem in being poorly informed on a matter.
> I suggest you leave yourself open to a large amount of ridicule if that's
> your position on things.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>

"George" <George@least> writes:
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> George wrote:
>>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent
>>> > of
>>> > any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the
>>> > "right"
>>> > one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that
>>> > they're
>>> > all wrong :-).
>>>
>>> Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative
>>> number
>>> of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
>>> establish the percentages.
>>
>> You think about it. He's taking his chances amongst religions, not the
>> number of adherents in any one or gorup of religions. Thus, 20, pick
>> one, 5% shot at being right (actually, no, because there are those who
>> claim none of the religions is right, but that's another tale).
>
>More than twenty and most admit others are just different paths to the same
>destination, so weak even there.
>

Cite please for the "most admit" part?

Fundamentally (no pun intended), a religion that accepts the existence
of another religion undermines itself. Particularly, if Christians
accept Islam as a religion, it throws doubt on Christ as the son of god.

scott

On 10/12/2005 7:35 PM Scott Lurndal mumbled something about the following:
> "George" <George@least> writes:
>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>George wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent
>>>>>of
>>>>>any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the
>>>>>"right"
>>>>>one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that
>>>>>they're
>>>>>all wrong :-).
>>>>
>>>>Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative
>>>>number
>>>>of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
>>>>establish the percentages.
>>>
>>>You think about it. He's taking his chances amongst religions, not the
>>>number of adherents in any one or gorup of religions. Thus, 20, pick
>>>one, 5% shot at being right (actually, no, because there are those who
>>>claim none of the religions is right, but that's another tale).
>>
>>More than twenty and most admit others are just different paths to the same
>>destination, so weak even there.
>>
>
>
> Cite please for the "most admit" part?
>
> Fundamentally (no pun intended), a religion that accepts the existence
> of another religion undermines itself. Particularly, if Christians
> accept Islam as a religion, it throws doubt on Christ as the son of god.

Umm, but Christianity accepts the existance of other religions.

First commandment - Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

There is the admittance of other gods, namely the Roman, Greek, and
Teutonic gods, right there in the bible.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

[email protected] writes:
>

>The Catholic Church today aknowledges the doctrine of ecumenism,
>that persons of all faiths may achieve slavation through adherence

Man that has got to be one of the best freudians I've seen in a while.

scott

>to their faith, even if their creed is 'flawed'.
>
>Dunno about the others.
>
>The only formal excomunication of the 20th century was of the
>French Archbishop Lefevre, who pissed off the Pope by rejecting
>the reforms of the Vatican II conference, including the doctrine
>of ecumenism.
>
>--
>
>FF
>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > > > Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
>> > > > Conception or Reception.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'll accept that for Franco Harris's conotribution, but I do not KNOW
>> > > that for immaculate conception. Somebody's fingertips (speaking
>> > > metaphorically) were almost certainly on the ball, IMO.
>> >
>> > Nope.
>> >
>> > The dogma of the Immaculate Conception presumes that Joachim and
>> > Anne (or whoever they were) 'did it' just like anyone else.
>> >
>> > You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
>> > Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
>> > why not check it out?
>> >
>> > BTW, have you figured out why the Indians you know speak English
>> > so well?
>>
>> Parthenogenesis is the closest thing I've seen to a rational
>> explanation, so, without that, we've got religious nonsense, something
>> I get sufficient of on a daily basis in this locale.
>
> The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of _Mary_
> not the conception of Christ.
>
> You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
> Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
> why not check it out?
>
> Of course it is religions nonsense, that is why science is
> silent on the issue of the Immaculate Conception, and of
> original sin in general, though it is not on the issue of
> the virgin birth of Christ. The virgin birth of Christ is
> contrary to scientific models for human reproduction. The
> dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary lies entirely
> outside of any scientific theory because the dogmatic
> elements are entirely metaphysical.
>
> That virgin birth is contrary to scientific models for human
> reproduction might at first seem to be a conflict between
> religion and science. But religion has a simple concept
> to avoid that--the miracle, or if you prefer, Intelligent
> Design of the Saviour.
>
>>
>> I have no idea why the few Indians I know locally speak English
>> reasonably well. Part of it is that they've now been in this area for 6
>> or 7 years, I guess, and, like most of us, pick up the local patois.
>> ...
>
> What language do you suppose they spoke in India?
>
> --
>
> FF
>
There are several hundred indigenous languages spoken in India, and many of
them can't communicate unless they use a common language like English.
Almost anything that needs to reach a broad part of the population must be
in English to be understood, and it is the language taught in school and
serves as a mark of education.

Steve

"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >
> ...
>
> > ... I'm not equipped to do battle in this area, so I
> > make no attempt to. I have questions - mostly based on things I'd heard
or
> > read along the way over the years and I thow them out in attempt to
> > reconcile that information with what's being said currently.
Unfortunately,
> > this seems to be bothersome.
>
> It's as much or more the way you've thrown out the tidbits you've
> done--as if they're facts and w/o doing apparently the least be of
> rational thinking about whether there is any plausible basis for them...

Well Duane, one confirmation is all that is necessary to affirm what I
feared. I do offer my apologies. I had hoped that by establishing myself
in the manner that I did at the outset, that I would have laid a groundwork
to be less concerned for how I posted things, and adopt a conversational
manner. Clearly this is not the case. The tidbits were just my way of
getting the things I was aware of out there at what seemed like an
appropriate point.

>
> ...
>
> > Usenet is a difficult medium in that the written word lacks any of the
> > indicators to differentiate an attempted statment of fact from a
question...
>
> Only if the poster posts a question in a declarative form. A question
> in English ends in a question mark and includes an interogative form,
> not declarative. At least the posts of yours I read lacked both.
> Hence, it's not at all surprising they were taken as declaratives and a
> statement of personal belief.
> ...

No contest. Realize though that when one positions themselves as I did -
something of a no-op at the level of intellectual battle on this particular
field, it is easy and maybe even natural (at least it was to me) to assume
that the other players recognize that you aren't trying to make "real"
assertions. Hell - you've already admitted you can't. No matter. The
point is well taken. I had assumed that my opening declarations had
provided me a certain freedom in the manner in which I posted and like all
assumptions...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

Doug - you're making an ass of yourself barking because you heard the
howling in the woods.

> And I'm supposed to feel *better* now that you tell me that? Just because
"a
> large number of people" believe something does *not* make it true.

Irrelevant. Feel as you will.

>
>
> Then perhaps you should stay out of the debates? Certainly, if you insist
on
> joining in under those circumstances, you should not be surprised when you
are
> told that what you think you know... ain't so.
>

You clearly have no clue what you're braying about now Doug. It would
behoove you to read what was posted before jumping off on a rant.

>
> Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of making comments on subjects on
which
> you *know* you are uninformed.

Perhaps you should read posts before you attempt to so soundly put another
in their place. You need the practice.

>
> Incorrect. The message is that there is a problem with speaking publicly
on
> subjects about which you are poorly informed.

Yawn.

>
>
> I'm comfortable with that... Are you comfortable with the ridicule you
risk
> inviting by asserting that man and dinosaurs coexisted based on the
"evidence"
> of cave paintings allegedly depicting dinos? I notice you still haven't
> answered my challenge of a couple days ago to cite just *one* instance of
a
> cave painting that clearly depicts something unambiguously recognizable as
a
> dinosaur, that has *not* been shown to be a modern fake.

You are making a fool of yourself Doug. I've acknowledged this stuff enough
times and there's no point in doing so further just to satisfy your ego.
I'm oh-so sorry if you feel left out because I did not humble myself before
your obvious greater wisdom, but you just don't mean that much to me Doug.
Take your self serving attitude and place it where... well, you know the
rest.

Look - we've had decent enough conversations in this group in the past and
there's probably no reason not to anticipate that going forward. You've
elected though to jump on something that has been acknowledged and explained
and which is not as you portray it. Get over it. It may come as a shock to
you, but there are things in the world that are not as they appear to you.
Clearly, I caused more than just you to take my comments the wrong way and
I've stepped up to that. It's your turn now - I've set the record straight
on the matter. Either accept it or not, but at this point any furtherance
of this discussion is nothing more than a reflection of your insistence.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:59:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> > Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's bunk?
>> > Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I
>didn't
>> > see any claims against the stuff.
>> >
>> Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
>> one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?
>
>Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this for
>the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an intent
>to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these things
>and sometimes it's just discourse.


actually, it sounds like you just mouthing off, making wild fundie
claims and not being able to back them up.

oh well.

>> The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of _Mary_
>> not the conception of Christ.
>>
>> You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
>> Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
>> why not check it out?

Thanks for explaining the confusion. Now I know something I didn't know
before.

Odinn wrote:

<SNIP>

> Umm, but Christianity accepts the existance of other religions.
>
> First commandment - Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>
> There is the admittance of other gods, namely the Roman, Greek, and
> Teutonic gods, right there in the bible.
>

You desparate need a good history book. The Ten Commandments
were written considerably *before* any Roman, Greek, or Teutonic
(Fritz, The God Of Pretzels?) came upon the scene ... About
4-6 *thousand* years before depending on whose dating you accept.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Hi Mike,

At the risk of belaboring a point I'll try to illustrate why I think some of
your comments were viewed as "statements" as opposed to a dialogue of
questioning.

<SNIP>

BadgerDog:
>> It looks like you were called a "Fundi" because you were making
>> assertions
>> without being able to back them up (a common tactic used by "Fundis"). I
>> respect that you later acknowledged that you further researched the
>> topics
>> and no longer stood by them. However, I hope that you understand why you
>> should not be stating these arguments as "facts". I know that you
>> ackowledged that you were not an expert, but it would have been better if
>> you ASKED about these topics (e.g. haven't there been cases where tracks
>> from man and dinosaurs were found together) instead of stating them as
>> facts.

Mike:
> Usenet is a difficult medium in that the written word lacks any of the
> indicators to differentiate an attempted statment of fact from a question
> asked in different forms. Having read your comment above I went back and
> reviewed everthing I posted in this and the related threads. My fear was
> that in assuming that I was engaging in conversation, it may have come
> across that I was attempting to state fact, when what I was attempting to
> do
> was be conversational instead of taking the more unpleasant approach that
> has been prominent in these threads. It remains that I can't see anywhere
> where I took a factual position. I made statements under the umbrella of
> my
> lack of knowledge that I assumed would make it clear that I was being
> conversational instead of confrontational. Stating fact? Really - a guy
> who comes into this type of discussion with the opening statement that
> he's
> not qualified in any way, does not try to state fact. Readers on the
> other
> hand, with a little too much angst may mis-read what has been written.
> Communication is dependent upon two factors - the speaker and the hearer.
>

I agree that usenet can be a difficult medium for communication, which in
some ways makes it even more important to try to make it clear what you are
trying to communicate. Here's an example of your comments that seem to be
more statements than questions:

"World Traveler" had written:
<snip> ... The statements on ID that I've seen include: Man and dinosaurs
coexisted.

Your response was:
Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).

Larry Blanchard responded: References, please.

Your response was:
Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and dinosaur
in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as that
was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the superimposed
footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar. If my
memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I
believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.
Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.

My comments:
Granted, you acknowledge that you are not an expert in the field, but it
seems to me that you are making statements of "fact" supporting that
dinosaurs and man coexisted as opposed to simply raising questions about. I
would hope that you can see how this looks like you are stating "facts",
even under your umbrella of your lack of knowledge.

For an absurd analogy, what if I said: I'm not a mechanic, and I don't
really understand how engines work, but I know of a solution to our energy
problems because I read an article about a guy that developed a car with an
engine that runs on urine. I can see how you could interpret this statement
as a way to open a dialoge to discuss whether there really is an engine that
runs on urine, but I think a more common interpretation would be that I was
stating a "fact".


I would also say that your comments on the cave paintings sounded more like
an argument that there are cave paintings of dinosaurs as opposed to raising
it as a question/discussion topic.

Best Regards,
BadgerDog

In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Well Duane, one confirmation is all that is necessary to affirm what I
>> >feared. I do offer my apologies. I had hoped that by establishing
>myself
>> >in the manner that I did at the outset, that I would have laid a
>groundwork
>> >to be less concerned for how I posted things, and adopt a conversational
>> >manner. Clearly this is not the case. The tidbits were just my way of
>> >getting the things I was aware of out there at what seemed like an
>> >appropriate point.
>>
>> Problem is, you're "aware of" things that have no basis in fact. Like the
>cave
>> paintings of dinosaurs.
>>
>
>Well - I can assure you there are a large number of people like me in that
>respect.

And I'm supposed to feel *better* now that you tell me that? Just because "a
large number of people" believe something does *not* make it true.

>One of the problems with anything that we don't really follow or
>stay abreast of is that the things we hear, or read, or encounter tend to
>stick with us and often times at the peril of having been proven to be wrong
>a long time ago. For those of us that don't stay abreast of this stuff, we
>often don't even know what has been proven to be wrong, false, etc.

Then perhaps you should stay out of the debates? Certainly, if you insist on
joining in under those circumstances, you should not be surprised when you are
told that what you think you know... ain't so.

>So...
>we bring up what we do "know". It's not in attempt to impress a fact, it's
>in attempt to be part of the conversation. Though it's only at a layman
>level, there is within most of us a desire to pick up a little something as
>we participate in these types of things.

Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of making comments on subjects on which
you *know* you are uninformed.
>
>Having said all of that - just what is the purpose of your comment Doug? I
>had just acknowledged that I had poorly articulated my thoughts, apologized
>and tried to explain (briefly) that my real intent was far different from
>that which I had apparently caused some to believe. You chime in with your
>comment which to be frank is pure bullshit. The implication in your
>statement is that there is a problem in being poorly informed on a matter.

Incorrect. The message is that there is a problem with speaking publicly on
subjects about which you are poorly informed.

>I suggest you leave yourself open to a large amount of ridicule if that's
>your position on things.

I'm comfortable with that... Are you comfortable with the ridicule you risk
inviting by asserting that man and dinosaurs coexisted based on the "evidence"
of cave paintings allegedly depicting dinos? I notice you still haven't
answered my challenge of a couple days ago to cite just *one* instance of a
cave painting that clearly depicts something unambiguously recognizable as a
dinosaur, that has *not* been shown to be a modern fake.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

>>>
>>> Problem is, you're "aware of" things that have no basis in fact. Like the
>>cave
>>> paintings of dinosaurs.
>>>
>>
>>Well - I can assure you there are a large number of people like me in that
>>respect.
>
>And I'm supposed to feel *better* now that you tell me that? Just because "a
>large number of people" believe something does *not* make it true.

especially something like cave paintings of dinosaurs, where all
instances are deliberate frauds.