On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:20:21 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> On 4/22/2011 14:00, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> unambiguous?
>>
http://www.google.co.za/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=ambiguous+quran&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>
> Perhaps "ambiguous" was a poor choice of word compared to  
> "contradictory".
>
> I was really referring to Jim's quote "the one that says 'kill the  
> infidels' or the one that says 'Islam is peaceful'."
>
> The answer is "whichever comes later."

Oh, sorry about that.

>
> One may reasonably be confused about what something unclear means, but  
> one cannot be reasonably confused about which instructions are  
> applicable and which aren't. Unlike, say, the Bible, where some people  
> think what Paul (and later popes) wrote supersedes what Jesus said, and  
> others don't.
>

It's all Point Of View...

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 3:22 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/22/2011 15:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Its the only conceivable condition where you can spend your time
>> looking for
>> the genetic equivalent of Bigfoot, and actually find something that
>> isn't a
>> man in a gorilla suit.
>
> Except, in that case, it *is* precisely a man in a gorilla suit. Humans
> tinkering with DNA are no more unnatural than beavers building dams. The
> only way you'd actually be justified in teaching that anything
> discovered by evolution is in doubt is if there was a *supernatural*
> source. Aliens visiting and modifying the DNA doesn't mean the DNA
> didn't evolve. Not even large black rectangular aliens.
>
True enough. Which is why the hard core ID people have pretty much 
dropped the, "It could have been aliens.", thing. Well, except when 
badly backed into a corner, where most will either admit they mean god, 
but hedge that it, "might have been something else", without saying 
what, or just can't come up with anything else any more, even to hedge 
and hand wave the question away.

The game is pretty much up, except among people that haven't been paying 
real attention, much like how there where still morons siding with SCO, 
right up until the dead end, because they couldn't grasp how lost the 
cause was, and how fact free, and unsupportable, their claims where.

Odds are, in ten years, a majority of people with accept that ID was 
creationism all along, and nearly everyone, if they even remember, will 
understand that SCO didn't have a case to start with, but there will 
*still* be idiots defending the idea that *both* might have turned out 
differently. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 3:49 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> One may reasonably be confused about what something unclear means, but
>> one cannot be reasonably confused about which instructions are
>> applicable and which aren't. Unlike, say, the Bible, where some people
>> think what Paul (and later popes) wrote supersedes what Jesus said,
>> and others don't.
>>
>
> It's all Point Of View...
>
Hmm. Maybe its just my liberal bias showing, but one commentator put it 
like this, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own 
facts." Unfortunately, among the religious, they often make up facts, 
based on their desired opinion. Something that can be seen every time 
you deal with arguments about everything from evidence for a real Jesus, 
to even things like, "god helps those that help themselves". Which, I 
understand may have been first stated "officially" by Joan of Arc, 
according to translation of the notes taken by her personal secretary, 
but which was probably a common fiction even before she stated it.

Point Of View = "Putting a bag over your head, with a picture drawn on 
it, because you don't like the existing view out your real window." ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:32:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> So, sure, using the layman's "theory" might be legitimate, its ***not***
> legitimate if the thing being discussed is scientific evidence, since
> doing so is not going to help you find out which is which

Except that we're talking about laypeople talking about science - people 
who *think* they're using the term correctly.  People who are *convinced* 
they know what they're talking about.

People who *believe* that there is only one meaning for the word.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:47:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Strictly speaking, its only a violation if it only covers "one" creation
> theory, from a single religion. 

If they're doing a comparative religions course, sure.  Not if they're 
calling it 'science'.  Another case of laypeople using a term in a way 
that is not appropriate.

> The problem is: a) there is no way in
> hell they would allow other creation theories. b) they would play the
> same idiot game as they do in government, if allowed, which is to say,
> "Since we don't have any X people here, we are only going to address the
> creation beliefs of the people that actually are in the class."

Which would be total BS, because it's not a religious studies course, 
it's a science course, in which case, the topic under discussion is 
scientific fact, not "nobody believes the FSM created the world or that 
the world exists on the back of a giant turtle, so we won't discuss that."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/04/2011 06:08 PM, John VanSickle wrote:

> That's not hard. Read the Bible and see what it says about how to become
> a Christian, and what it commands Christians to do. Then compare it to
> the doings of the religious bodies in question. Time and again, at so
> many points of teaching, we find things taught and practiced that cannot
> be found in the Bible, from even the very basics of becoming a
> Christian, to the organization of the church, liturgy, and so forth.

"Heh, well, it *does* say in the Bible 'God helps those who help 
themselves'."

"Actually... nuh, it doesn't. That's Beed's Chronicles. The Bible says 
quite the opposite, in fact..."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21/04/2011 11:30 PM, Warp wrote:

>    The whole idea with the "intelligent design" movement is to mask the
> fact that it's simply repackaged creationism, by removing all mentions
> of "God" and other theistic claims. In other words, ID attempts to be
> a "legit" scientific objection to the currently established hypotheses
> and theories on the formation of the universe, life and its diversity.
> The idea is to try to circumvent the annoying limitation in the US
> that theism and creationism cannot be taught as part of science, by
> simply maskerading it. Of course they aren't fooling anybody.

If only that final statement were true...

>    In the worst case scenario the whole schooling system could get sabotaged
> to a catastrophical point. Science, technology and progress would suffer
> enormously.

Hopefully the damage would be limited only to America. Hopefully... :-.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 3:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hopefully the damage would be limited only to America. Hopefully... :-.

Maybe if we screw up everyone's science here enough, we won't have enough 
smart people to build the weapons we tend to use to invade foreign countries.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 23/04/2011 05:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Maybe if we screw up everyone's science here enough, we won't have
> enough smart people to build the weapons we tend to use to invade
> foreign countries.

Perhaps. But I doubt it. :-S

OG claims that he used to be in the UK's armed forces, in their signals 
division, working with classified cryptography and such. He told us how 
the UK has one way running the entire telecomms truck, while the USA 
army has basically one guy for every individual piece of equipment, and 
each guy only knows how to operate that one item of kit, and basically 
has no clue WTF it does or why it's important. They just know how to set 
it up and fix it if it breaks. Apparently they were blown away that in 
the UK one person can understand more than one thing.

Then again, this is the same OG who tells us that all Americans are 
dicks. And the same OG who claims to have designed classified military 
hardware that he can't tell us about becuase them he'd have to kill us, 
but at the same time seems to be ignorant of basic cryptographic 
principles, so.......

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:32:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> So, sure, using the layman's "theory" might be legitimate, its ***not***
>> legitimate if the thing being discussed is scientific evidence, since
>> doing so is not going to help you find out which is which
>
> Except that we're talking about laypeople talking about science - people
> who *think* they're using the term correctly.  People who are *convinced*
> they know what they're talking about.
>
> People who *believe* that there is only one meaning for the word.
>
> Jim
And, it would be just so "strident", or something, to point out that the 
world is no in fact flat to such people... lol

Post a reply to this message