Yeah, it was so funny when I saw it... I was thinking, "Wow, I'm watching Mark Twain!" It was great.
rem
Posts by rem
-
16Vonnegut on Daily Show
by joelbear inkurt vonnegut is definitely one of my heroes.
he was only on for like 8 minutes but i was totally enthralled.. my favorites of his are galapagos, cat's cradle and welcome to the monkey house.
incredible insight on the human condition.
-
-
rem
-
157
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus inwednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
-
-
rem
Hooberus,
>> The problem with this argument is that evolution is not limited to the "Neo-Darwinian Theory" (a mechanism theory) - thus even if the NDT does not include the ultimate origins of life it does not mean that such a thing is therefore to be excluded from evolution.
What do you think the Theory of Evolution is if not a machanism theory of the diversity of life? Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life as many of us have been trying to explain to you for years now. Is there a specific origin theory within the framework of the Theory of Evolution that you would like to demonstrate?
Evolution is agonostic when it comes to origins. Magic elves could have created the first biological organisms for all Evolution cares. Yes, that means that Evolution is compatible with certain origin scenarios that include a creator such as one or many gods. Evolution is not an intrinsically atheistic theory, just as the theory of gravity is not atheistic. There is no anti-god bias... god(s) are just not important for the theory.
If you don't want to talk about the theory as scientists use it, then what is the point of talking about it? If you just want to make up your own version of the Theory of Evolution, then you are really only arguing with yourself.
rem -
172
TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking
by Terry inmankind has had a pretty good track record of tackling the problems of life on earth.
different folks have tried different strokes.
you might say that life has been the crucible for testing an idea as to efficacy and the legacy of any idea is how well it worked.. .
-
-
rem
I don't see anything wrong with calling Deepak Chopra an airy-fairy wingnut. He is. Sure he has done much good with his scientific training, but he has gone off the deep end with his untested, non-replicated theories.
rem -
49
Are birthdays now a "conscience matter" for JWs?
by Elsewhere ina few months ago my jw sister emailed me out of the blue asking for me to suggest a good telescope for her little girl (about 12, but i'm not sure).
my niece has had a strong interest in science since she was very little and my sister is trying to encourage her.
if you are wondering, yes, my sister and her jw husband do shun me... so basically she got the info she needed and then disappeared again.
-
-
rem
>> The latest publication, "What the Bible Really Teaches" on page 159 subheading: DO ORIGINS REALLY MATTER?, paragraph 12 says: "Maybe you feel that the origins of holidays have little to do with how they are celebrated today. Do origins really matter? Yes! To illustrate: Suppose you saw a piece of candy lying in the gutter. Would you pick up that candy and eat it? Of course not! That candy is unclean. Like that candy, holidays may seem sweet, but they have been picked up from unclean places. To take a stand for true worship, we need to have a viewpoint like that of the prophet Isaiah, who told true worshippers: "Touch nothing unclean."-Isaiah 52:11"
Wow, that has to be one of the most brain-dead arguments... ever. Comparing birthday celebrations to picking up candy from a gutter? Are we supposed to be six years old or something?
And what the hell does Isaiah 52:11 have to do with celebrations that may have had religious or "bad" significance in the past but not today? Absolutely nothing.
What an intellectually insulting religion. I guess they don't expect anyone to actually read the supporting scriptures and keep them honest.
rem -
4
More IT / Technical jobs available where I work!!!
by Elsewhere inbusiness is good!
here are some it positions that are available where i work.
if anyone is interested, just pm me!
-
-
rem
Hey, if you guys want some really experienced candidates you should try and find guys with experience/certification on Juniper gear.
Of course, I'm biased since I'm a Juniper SE. :)
rem -
157
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus inwednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
-
-
rem
I'm referring to Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. This theory is not concerned with the ultimate origins of life.
rem -
7
In Florida--Lease Lawsuit gets Ghoulish!
by Atlantis inabout 1/2 way down the article: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/12585169.htm http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/12585169.htm "these reports, all independently provided, are strikingly similar in content," franklin wrote.
"apparently, these types of sightings are well-known to some of your employees but were not made known to mr. chung.
... as a jehovah's witness, mr. chung has deeply held beliefs regarding spirits and demons.
-
-
rem
Utter stupidity. More cases like this and the states will start requiring a phantom disclosure in the closing papers. lol
rem -
157
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus inwednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
-
-
rem
Sorry Hooberus, but your side-stepping won't work here.
Scientists don't work with a "definition" of Evolution - they work with an actual Theory. The "definition" that we are talking about is a very high level description of the Theory that necessarily leaves out many details. The point is that the scientific Theory of Evolution does not include anything about the origins of life - even in its most broad definition. I used a mainstream definition of Evolution to illustrate this.
Nowhere in your sources did you demonstrate that the origins of life are a part of the Theory of Evolution. The fact that the origins of life are naturally an important question regarding the evolution of life is stating the obvious. Just because the Origins of life got Evolution started doesn't mean the Theory of Evolution includes Origin hypotheses.
It is easy to talk casually about evolution and include origins of life. The fact that even prominent scientists do it in books they publish doesn't change the fact that the technical Theory is different. Physicists talk about the Big Bang theory all the time when talking about the Theory of Gravity. It doesn't make them the same theory, though they are necessarily connected in a logical way.
When I say Evolution I'm talking about what actual scientists work on. When you say evolution you are talking about a general concept with so much baggage loaded that you cannot wrap your head around the fact that the scientific Theory of Evolution is quite different than what you are thinking about.
Notice the capitalization in the words above so you can understand when words are being used in a technical way vs. a casual way.
Cheers,
rem -
-
-
rem
Haha, that's great!
rem -
157
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus inwednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
-
-
rem
Shining One,
Perhaps you can show me where real scientists work in a dual Evolutionary theory (Micro vs. Macro). Hint: it doesn't exist.
It's kinda like this, SO:
You blow on your hand and the air molecules can't move it. You just add more and more air molecules being moved and you finally get a hurricane that can blow your house down. There is no known mechanism that blocks the phenomenon from scaling up.
The same is true for Evolution:
A small amount of genetic change and you get minor local variation within a species. Keep adding more and more genetic change and you finally get speciation and beyond. There is no known mechanism that blocks genetic change from increasing from generation to generation.
Cheers,
rem