H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.


There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.


You don't have a thimble full of credentials that support your ability
to analise said creationism.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote:


There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with
presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the
world.

Many billions? Just how many people to you think live on this planet?
There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. Of which, 2 billion are
Christian.

On 10/5/09 5:04 PM, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote:


There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with
presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the
world.

Many billions? Just how many people to you think live on this planet?
There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. Of which, 2 billion are
Christian.


Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented"
in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science?

Bull****.




--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human
knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. It sounds as
though you don't consider any of the effort put into the reaching of
conclusions as 'science', or the practice thereof.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:16:40 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:48:40 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

It may turn out that the ability to reason is not limited to humans.
Our real unique specialty (in addition to complex reasoning) seems to
be the ability to manipulate symbols, record history, learn from it,
and pass it on to the next generation.

No fair, I said you couldn't use porpoises.

Actually I've seen some dogs and cats that seem to have the ability
for basic reasoning. Here's an example: Back in the early 90s we
inherited a cat from my mother. We took the cat to our home which the
cat had never seen before. Almost immediately he got up on the back
of a sofa and started looking out the front window as a dog walked by
the house. The dog turned down our driveway heading for the back yard
and the cat immediately ran into the kitchen on the back of the house
and waited at a window for the dog to show up. Is that reasoning or
not?


Instinct and learning. The cat knew the dog had gone to its right or
left. It took off. The next available window was in the kitchen.

The other attributes just add credence to the theory that something
special happened to get man started.

I'd argue that quite a few special things happened over a long period
of time, hundreds of thousands of years. Every time that one of
those special events resulted in a smarter, more adaptable, more
survivable being - the resulting offspring tended to do better, live
longer and have more offspring with the same special trait that they
inherited. There were other "special events" that didn't work out so
well. Their offspring didn't do so well and are no longer around.

Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of
the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0400, H the K wrote:


Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented"
in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science?

Bull****.

IMO, it shouldn't. From my perspective, it's just another way of getting
the camel's nose under the tent. Most all religions have a creation
"theory", but that's not what we are discussing here. We're talking
about Christian creation "theory", and that, IMO, would be against the
First Amendment's prohibition on "establishment of religion". If you
were to give equal weight to all Creation "theories", it might pass
muster in some class, but not a science class.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:04:23 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote:


There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with
presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the
world.

Many billions? Just how many people to you think live on this planet?
There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. Of which, 2 billion are
Christian.

Muslims? They believe in God, along with Jews, and probably a few
others.

Change 'many' to 'several' if it pleases you.

Or, just call me an asshole.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of
the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years?

Did it? Or are we just now understanding animal development? Hell, even
the lowly crow has been witnessed problem solving and using tools. And
language? Many, many, species communicate both verbally and physically.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

Actually I've seen some dogs and cats that seem to have the ability
for basic reasoning. Here's an example: Back in the early 90s we
inherited a cat from my mother. We took the cat to our home which the
cat had never seen before. Almost immediately he got up on the back
of a sofa and started looking out the front window as a dog walked by
the house. The dog turned down our driveway heading for the back yard
and the cat immediately ran into the kitchen on the back of the house
and waited at a window for the dog to show up. Is that reasoning or
not?


Instinct and learning. The cat knew the dog had gone to its right or
left. It took off. The next available window was in the kitchen.

Who knows. The cat had a way of telling us what he was thinking and
it usually involved food or the lack thereof. There were actually
several rooms before the kitchen, but the kitchen had the best view of
the back yard.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:43:26 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of
the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years?

Did it? Or are we just now understanding animal development? Hell, even
the lowly crow has been witnessed problem solving and using tools. And
language? Many, many, species communicate both verbally and physically.

Tell me when one of them develops and produces something to increase
its food supply. Guano doesn't count.

I'm not going to argue with your idea that other animals have the
mental reasoning capacity as human. If you believe so, fine. I *will*
agree that some humans seem to have the reasoning capacity of slugs.

We have a couple right here.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.