Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Eventually word will reach the revival tent.)

Not if we use big enough words.

(Sorry, I have little respect for creation nuts.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by andViolins
Georgia considers banning 'evolution'

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."

The change is included in more than 800 pages of draft revisions to Georgia's curriculum that have been posted by the Department of Education on its Web site. The middle and high school standards are expected to be voted on by the state Board of Education in May, after public feedback.

Superintendent Kathy Cox said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the word would not be used. The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it.

Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.

"If teachers across this state, parents across this state say, 'This is not what we want,' then we'll change it," said Cox, a Republican elected in 2002.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01....ap/index.html

Yep. This sounds like a winner to me. On the positive side, at least people can laugh at Georgia now, taking the pressure off of Ohio for a while.

aV

They're selling a book in the Grand Canyon bookstore now that claims that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old and was created through the Biblical flood.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1602793

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not if we use big enough words.

(Sorry, I have little respect for creation nuts.)

Don't have much myself, but I hear that Ralph Reed carries around a big ol' dictionary, just in case the secularist heathens try something tricky. That's why I think this manuver isn't really a lasting solution.

[sgtclub]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004621

[Chris Cox to tackle runaway spending]

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
There have been stories in the last few days that the military is planning a major offensive into Pakistan to go after the Taliban/OBL types there. Not sure that this story is related to that, but it would improve the odds.

Stratfor predicted this offensive in an article a few days ago. They seem to think it is necesary to really cripple al Qaeda (even more) and to have any shot at OBL. They must have good sources.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Stratfor predicted this offensive in an article a few days ago. They seem to think it is necesary to really cripple al Qaeda (even more) and to have any shot at OBL. They must have good sources.

S_A_M

I think the timing has more to do with Mushareef (sp?) having gone through three assassination attempts, and now being a bit more willing to let the US "invade" his areas of control as a staging point in order to knock down the Islamicists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the timing has more to do with Mushareef (sp?) having gone through three assassination attempts, and now being a bit more willing to let the US "invade" his areas of control as a staging point in order to knock down the Islamicists.

Yes. Here's a lengthy post by Dan Drezner from a few days back about this subject, including lengthy quotation from the Chicago Tribune article that broke the story.

[Hank Chinaski]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by andViolins
What you quoted from me was in response to Hank, who I believe is just trying to be contrarian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bilmore
No, he's not.

Several quick hits:
I am not a "creationist", at least in the sense you would mean, and not particularly religious.
Tyrone's point of accepting all of science, or none, shows a thinking man accepting w/o thinking. Much of science can be proven- some cannot. Global warming is hard to prove, evolution- impossible. That fact that it is impossible to prove but theorized by SCIENTISTS doesn't make it right.
as to the main issue:
Some miracles occured to bring me here, with all of you listening at my feet, as it were.
Either God snapped his fingers and started life. Variations of monkey to man, or not.
Or soem chemicals in some ooze became a single cell* life that reproduced*, became multi-celled*, developed organ systems*, and eventually left infirm for here.
Scientists have no strong evidence for each *, and generally agree each is a million or billion to one shot. The earth has been around for along time so extreme shots are not impossible.

However, when you discount the "creationists" for believing in fables, I merely want you to remember that you believe instead on a cascaded sieres of 1 in a million shots. Moe surprising is that you seem to accept it with little questioning, because Science told you to trust it on this one.
Do any of you seriously feel comfortable in saying the odds of there being a god are greater than several 1 in a million shots?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by andViolins
What you quoted from me was in response to Hank, who I believe is just trying to be contrarian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Several quick hits:
I am not a "creationist", at least in the sense you would mean, and not particularly religious.
Tyrone's point of accepting all of science, or none, shows a thinking man accepting w/o thinking. Much of science can be proven- some cannot. Global warming is hard to prove, evolution- impossible. That fact that it is impossible to prove but theorized by SCIENTISTS doesn't make it right.
as to the main issue:
Some miracles occured to bring me here, with all of you listening at my feet, as it were.
Either God snapped his fingers and started life. Variations of monkey to man, or not.
Or soem chemicals in some ooze became a single cell* life that reproduced*, became multi-celled*, developed organ systems*, and eventually left infirm for here.
Scientists have no strong evidence for each *, and generally agree each is a million or billion to one shot. The earth has been around for along time so extreme shots are not impossible.

However, when you discount the "creationists" for believing in fables, I merely want you to remember that you believe instead on a cascaded sieres of 1 in a million shots. Moe surprising is that you seem to accept it with little questioning, because Science told you to trust it on this one.
Do any of you seriously feel comfortable in saying the odds of there being a god are greater than several 1 in a million shots?

(1) I didn't say you accept all science or none. I was observing that people show a peculiar propensity to start questioning science when evolution is at issue which they don't when talking about, e.g., geology (which has similar implications re the date of creation) or astrophysics.

(2) A belief in God is perfectly compatible with evolution. A literal belief in Biblical creation is not.

(3) Scientists have good answers for the problems you raise. You either know this, and are trolling, or you don't, and should look into it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
However, when you discount the "creationists" for believing in fables, I merely want you to remember that you believe instead on a cascaded sieres of 1 in a million shots. Moe surprising is that you seem to accept it with little questioning, because Science told you to trust it on this one.

But they are cascading shots with, at least, a history of empirical support. We have the overall theory, and then we have component parts of that theory, and those component parts, as we progress in our ability to observe and measure and understand, are more and more buttressed. Understandably, it's an attempt to build a model, but, looking to the logical chain that we call the scientific method, the model so far holds. To me, that is support, and the 1 in a million shots simply define where our knowledge has failed to progress so far. The alternative - well, I see no support for it - none - aside from wishful thinking. The need to feel significant is not a sufficient reason to feel significant.

Do any of you seriously feel comfortable in saying the odds of there being a god are greater than several 1 in a million shots?

Not understanding what you're saying - do you mean, the odds AGAINST? Of course not - I can't opine on the color of the center of Pluto, either - but not being able to opine is never an argument one way or the other. I have several segments of the beginnings of arguments supporting "evolution", while there are none (acceptable to my empirisist bent, of course) that support a god.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) I didn't say you accept all science or none. I was observing that people show a peculiar propensity to start questioning science when evolution is at issue which they don't when talking about, e.g., geology (which has similar implications re the date of creation) or astrophysics.

geology and astrophysics are apples and orange. Geology we can generally test a theory. Astrophysics we generally guess at an explanation. This is a basic difference, and explains the why geological theories stay static for longer time periods than astrophysic theories, which change constantly.

(2) A belief in God is perfectly compatible with evolution. A literal belief in Biblical creation is not.

Exactly

(3) Scientists have good answers for the problems you raise. You either know this, and are trolling, or you don't, and should look into it.

That you don't like my argument style does make me a troll. I have looked. There are no good answers, at best there are guessses bases upon a presupposition that the overall theory is true, so there must be a good answer. And Ty, here you admit you accept without asking for proof. That ty, is faith.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
That you don't like my argument style does make me a troll. I have looked. There are no good answers, at best there are guessses bases upon a presupposition that the overall theory is true, so there must be a good answer. And Ty, here you admit you accept without asking for proof. That ty, is faith.

People don't get tenure at major universities for guesses, Hank. As you note w/r/t astophysics, there are some things that cannot be "proven," only explained to the best of our ability. You and I have no way to "prove" that an intelligent designer -- God, or Calvin Klein, say -- did not create the world on February 8, 1907, and stuff it chock full of interesting little clues that might lead a non-believer to jump to a different conclusion.

Do you accept the theory of evolution? If not, why not?

And if you want to know where I stand re faith, look in the FB for an exchange between Sebby and myself where he is taking the science-good/religion-bad caricature that you are trying to pin on me, and I'm defending faith. There will always be some things that science cannot explain.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
People don't get tenure at major universities for guesses,

Now who's being naive*?

Do you accept the theory of evolution? If not, why not?

The natural selection changes species part, yes. If you mean choosing between promordial ooze becoming life, or God snapping fingers, or God setting up the primordial ooze; it is a coin-flip, I guess.

And if you want to know where I stand re faith, look in the FB for an exchange between Sebby and myself where he is taking the science-good/religion-bad caricature that you are trying to pin on me, and I'm defending faith. There will always be some things that science cannot explain.

You think I was using faith as a synonym for religion. I wasn't. I was trying to make the point that you are accepting science as a religion.

*Godfather reference.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
geology and astrophysics are apples and orange. Geology we can generally test a theory. Astrophysics we generally guess at an explanation. This is a basic difference, and explains the why geological theories stay static for longer time periods than astrophysic theories, which change constantly.

And yet the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's Flood a couple thousand years ago...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Now who's being naive*?

*Godfather reference.

Please continue to flag these, as they are otherwise lost on me. Thank you.

The natural selection changes species part, yes. If you mean choosing between promordial ooze becoming life, or God snapping fingers, or God setting up the primordial ooze; it is a coin-flip, I guess.

On the former, that's what I thought. On the latter, we'll never know, will we?

You think I was using faith as a synonym for religion. I wasn't. I was trying to make the point that you are accepting science as a religion.

Oh, horse pucky. That's just tired, and cheapens religion. I have limited time in my life, and prefer to spend much of it here, engaged in pedantic and frivolous exchanges, rather than learning more science. But I know that if I chose to educate myself, I could learn what scientists are doing and understand and form a belief as to whether or not it makes sense. I accept science as a heuristic, not on faith. The same is not true of my religion, no matter how much I go to church.