New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[peat moss]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.


The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know I was brought up with the lords prayer over the intercom every morning I turned out ok . I'm not religious in any way but would n't mind my little ones hearing it . Can't they hear both sides then make up their own minds ?



Oops : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092300927.html

[3RA1N1AC]

uh... why is this "intelligent design belongs in science classes" noise still on? regardless of whether there's any metaphysical truth to it, metaphysics is not a scientific discipline by any stretch.

teach it in a philosophy or religious studies class? fine. but it's got basically nothing in common with scientific theory as scientists & educators define it, 'cause you can't empirically observe or test the invisible world, the beyond, the afterlife, alternate dimensions, etc and can't offer an explanation in theory form. at best it's a mere hypothesis which some eager folks have prematurely promoted to the rank of "theory," and they really should be told to go home and learn the difference between hypothesis & theory (which is completely different from how a layman might say "my theory is..." when he really means "i suspect, perhaps..." or "i have faith in the idea...").

[peat moss]

Wow brainiac is right ! :lol: At what grade tho 7 ?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Nothing new here at all, been going on for years, and will continue for years. Nothing to see here citizens, move along.

[j2k4]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:

[Rat Faced]

I think thats your perception only J2..

They have designated 2 sides to the case, which is normal practice... your the one that has said "good" and "bad" to those sides, not reuters.

If its which one is 1st, then you must also allow that in:

"the People/State" vs "whoever"

The State/People must be bad and the "whoever" good... weird thing for a conservative to think...

[j2k4]

I think thats your perception only J2..

They have designated 2 sides to the case, which is normal practice... your the one that has said "good" and "bad" to those sides, not reuters.

If its which one is 1st, then you must also allow that in:

"the People/State" vs "whoever"

The State/People must be bad and the "whoever" good... weird thing for a conservative to think...

You fail to acknowledge the demonization of Christians and Conservatives is an on-going and pervasive process, Rat.

They could have been described as something innocuous, like...an "advocacy group", you see?

It is much like saying "A Fundamentalist Christian Group Bombed a Family-Planning Clinic", rather than, "A Religious Group Bombed an Abortion Clinic".

Maybe you don't see any difference, given the high ground you watch from. :P

[JPaul]

I've asked this before, why does intelligent design have to involve God.

I personally think it does, but I don't think it's a must. The entity who created our universe, who set all the rules, could have subsequently died.

[Rat Faced]

I think thats your perception only J2..

They have designated 2 sides to the case, which is normal practice... your the one that has said "good" and "bad" to those sides, not reuters.

If its which one is 1st, then you must also allow that in:

"the People/State" vs "whoever"

The State/People must be bad and the "whoever" good... weird thing for a conservative to think...

You fail to acknowledge the demonization of Christians and Conservatives is an on-going and pervasive process, Rat.

They could have been described as something innocuous, like...an "advocacy group", you see?

It is much like saying "A Fundamentalist Christian Group Bombed a Family-Planning Clinic", rather than, "A Religious Group Bombed an Abortion Clinic".

Maybe you don't see any difference, given the high ground you watch from. :P

In the same way as say...

"A Fundamentalist Islamic Group bombed an Israeli Military Checkpoint" as opposed to "A Religious Group bombed Armed Israeli Soldiers"..

Seems you only wish this way of communicating when it suits you :P

[j2k4]

I've asked this before, why does intelligent design have to involve God.

I personally think it does, but I don't think it's a must. The entity who created our universe, who set all the rules, could have subsequently died.

Just so; your post (as an example) seems to have been 'intelligently designed'.

As an adjunct thought:

Many here have, in other threads and over other subjects, said things like, "How can any intelligent person discount the possiblity of life elswhere in the universe?" ;)

Methinks if you've ever professed a belief in, or even expressed a willingness to countenance the chance of, extra-terrestrial life, you are de facto an advocate for intelligent design.

[j2k4]

You fail to acknowledge the demonization of Christians and Conservatives is an on-going and pervasive process, Rat.

They could have been described as something innocuous, like...an "advocacy group", you see?

It is much like saying "A Fundamentalist Christian Group Bombed a Family-Planning Clinic", rather than, "A Religious Group Bombed an Abortion Clinic".

Maybe you don't see any difference, given the high ground you watch from. :P

In the same way as say...

"A Fundamentalist Islamic Group bombed an Israeli Military Checkpoint" as opposed to "A Religious Group bombed Armed Israeli Soldiers"..

Seems you only wish this way of communicating when it suits you :P

Is this the tactic you use to avoid accepting that your argument has been summarily dispatched? :D

[Rat Faced]

Crap.

As ive said before, we are badly designed.

A design this bad can only come from starting from an orginal and then adding on other things for which the orginal design was not suited in the 1st place..

ie: Either evolved this way, or God was a totally lazy bastard that you wouldnt give a job to.

[Rat Faced]

In the same way as say...

"A Fundamentalist Islamic Group bombed an Israeli Military Checkpoint" as opposed to "A Religious Group bombed Armed Israeli Soldiers"..

Seems you only wish this way of communicating when it suits you :P

Is this the tactic you use to avoid accepting that your argument has been summarily dispatched? :D

Sorry, didnt realise that "summarily dispatched" meant the same as "Havent really got an answer to that"..

[j2k4]

Sorry, didnt realise that "summarily dispatched" meant the same as "Havent really got an answer to that"..

Answers require questions before them.

Have you a plain question, or just more rhetorical ones? :huh:

[Rat Faced]

I have no questions... just pointing out that you have put "Good" and "Bad" in the article, not Reuters.

They have merely reported exactly the same way as they do for everything else.

[j2k4]

I have no questions... just pointing out that you have put "Good" and "Bad" in the article, not Reuters.

They have merely reported exactly the same way as they do for everything else.

In this case, "the same way as they do for everything else..." is predjudicial, Rat, and that was my point.

If you, as a consumer of Reuters' output, have been conditioned to believe "Christian" and/or "Conservative" to have a negative connotation, then, hey...double-trouble.

I'm not aware of any media outlet characterizing teachers or scientists as inherently negative, are you?

[JPaul]

http://www.badscienceprojects.com/html/modules/news/

[Rat Faced]

Worthy News and just about every other Right Christian Agency? :P

However, im gobsmacked by your admission that the News is biased Re: Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East and elswhere. ;)

[vidcc]

@ J2.

Who is it then that is pushing for I.D. in schools?. Who was it pushing for creationism in schools (seeing as they are obviously two completely different things :rolleyes: )




@ topic
By all means put it in an elective religious studies class but keep it out of science classes. It's not science and doesn't belong there.

[spinningfreemanny]

@ topic
By all means put it in an elective religious studies class but keep it out of science classes. It's not science and doesn't belong there.


A common misconception nowadays. Truth is scholarly intelligent design supporters can quite effectively debate using pure scientific evidence.

You don't have to look hard to see such, but it is now common practice for evolutionists to turn a blind eye to this arguement.

Maybe this lawsuit will come to an actual debate about the validity of such things.

[spinningfreemanny]

As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated. Evolutionists can only hold out for so long; they are losing time to find that damning evidence in time for their presentation...

[ilw]

What predictions can be made on the assumption of intelligent design?

[j2k4]

I think this qualifies as a manny-sighting.

Good to see you, sir. ;)

[vidcc]

@ topic
By all means put it in an elective religious studies class but keep it out of science classes. It's not science and doesn't belong there.


A common misconception nowadays. Truth is scholarly intelligent design supporters can quite effectively debate using pure scientific evidence.

You don't have to look hard to see such, but it is now common practice for evolutionists to turn a blind eye to such things.

Maybe this lawsuit will come to an actual debate about the validity of such things.
Please point to this scientific evidence.

WB by the way

[3RA1N1AC]

A common misconception nowadays. Truth is scholarly intelligent design supporters can quite effectively debate using pure scientific evidence.
what is the evidence, precisely? or what is the evidence, roughly. as far as i've been able to dig up, intelligent design's scientific evidence consists of missing links. "here's something that evolutionary theory hasn't explained... therefore, intelligent design." that's not evidence, that's a lack of evidence.

a lot of controvery is made of things like the "missing link" of human evolution, or various other gaps... but science is not based on the gaps, it's based on everything besides the gaps.

[spinningfreemanny]

lets see...2 off of the top of my head.

1. Erosion patterns currently unexplainable to natural rivers will be observable.

2. Rapid devolution can be observed. (earth spin slowing, magnetic strength weakening, many star supernovas and no observed star births.)

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.

[spinningfreemanny]

Oh, nice to see you all around bytheway...

I'll try to poke my head in from time to time ;-)

[peat moss]

I started this thread thinking as a parent does from time to time , what are the schools doing right or wrong . I don't have a problem with religion or science , my guys are taught tolerance at home ( is that a religion ?) and I expect the same thing at school . Give them the facts real or imagined and let them ask their own questions . Kids are pretty smart they'll tune out the bull shit .

[JPaul]

The beauty of science is that it repeatedly and predictably proves itself to be incorrect. Only to go on and prove the new "fact" is also incorrect.

FFS we still teach Newtonian physics in schools, even the bits we now know to be incorrect.

Two scientists have opposing views on a subject, each of them has their proof. Each is convinced that they are correct, each has their followers. Which one do we allow to be taught, coz one must be wrong, no matter how much proof they have.

Point is chaps, science is not sacrosanct. Ask any decent physicist.

[j2k4]

The beauty of science is that it repeatedly and predictably proves itself to be incorrect. Only to go on and prove the new "fact" is also incorrect.

FFS we still teach Newtonian physics in schools, even the bits we now know to be incorrect.

Two scientists have opposing views on a subject, each of them has their proof. Each is convinced that they are correct, each has their followers. Which one do we allow to be taught, coz one must be wrong, no matter how much proof they have.

Point is chaps, science is not sacrosanct. Ask any decent physicist.

Quite clearly and succinctly put, my good man.

Will it matter?

Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic, and history are there to be ignored, I guess. ;)

[ilw]

In science classes we teach our kids the currently accepted scientific paradigm, we don't teach them all the random hypotheses that exist because that would literally take forever. And a scientific paradigm isn't something you challenge in court, if the evidence is compelling then all that is required is patience, science will eventually come round.

Btw they reckon they have seen places where stars are being born http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3227221.stm but from the little i know, the birth of a star isn't really something you're going to easily see. Its not like a supernova which is much more obvious (ie it goes bang and gets stupidly bright)

[3RA1N1AC]

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.

okay, here's william a. dembski. he's considered an authority on the topic, right? writing in a letter on february 1st, 2005:
ID is part of God's general revelation. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the Bible. That's why, for instance, the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies invited me to lecture on intelligent design and warmly embraced my message (this happened in October 2003). Just about anyone who is not wedded to a pure materialism agrees that some sort of design or purpose underlies nature. Intelligent design not only gives a voice to these people, but also gives them the tools to dismantle materialism.

Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

"dismantling materialism is a good thing." what does dembski mean by that? of course he doesn't mean it in the same sense that madonna does when she sings "i'm a material girl." he means materialism in the sense that "the only thing that can be known to have existed or occurred is physical"... and a sort-of relative of that, empiricism, is the philosophical principle from which modern science derives. not coincidentally, science has made its quickest progress and greatest achievements through empirical methods... they may not be 100% foolproof, but they've been pretty effective to say the least. so, dembski wants to throw away modern science's reliance on physical evidence that can be sensed (and theories that can be disproven, if necessary), and go with pure deductive reasoning instead because it opens the door for things like gods, aliens, etc to be considered serious science despite the fact that we cannot test the existence of gods or aliens. he is really asking for the scientific method to be turned upside down.

the gist of intelligent design:
*many living organisms are complex
*certain levels of complexity cannot happen by accident or by evolution, which indicates that the too-complex-for-evolution feature is the product of an intelligent designer
*therefore complex organisms are the product of an intelligent designer

much of that is presumption about what can and cannot occur through causes other than mental/spiritual "design." how does one determine what level of complexity requires the manipulation of this unidentified designer? numerology? where's the evidence, organized research, or the chance to disprove the hypothesis? it's a whole lot of jumping through logical hoops in order to arrive at the answer that they've already chosen. which is fine for philosophers, theologians, sherlock holmes, etc. pure deductive reasoning can be a worthwhile mental exercise, and it makes for great detective stories, but without a test it basically amounts to zilch in the laboratory.

as for evolution, off the top off my head, okay, organic evolution. the evolution of organisms. "micro-evolution" of subspecies is observable. you can observe a pack of domestic dogs evolve into a pack of wild dogs, coyotes into wolves, farm pigs into wild boars, etc. you can observe the development of subspecies of bacteria in a petrie dish. macro-evolution, the evolution of a totally new species, would happen way too slowly to observe in a human lifetime.

yet you CAN observe a type of evolution, it's just not the evolution of species. but at least it shows that evolution of distinct physical characteristics within a species due to factors like climate & such is not only possible but real and observable, and evolution of new species is very highly probable. the theory of species evolution is supported by things like: the existence of this or that type of animal fossil in certain levels of the earth crust indicates who precedes who. unless tyrannosaurus rex for example was just really good at digging with those tiny arms and then covering himself up with layer after layer of dirt & rock, it's prolly safe to say he was not preceded by the kangaroo. and there are quite obvious trends as far as "what are the common 'big animals' in this period, the next period, and so forth?" the earth's crust is a mural of new animals rising up to overtake & replace old animals.

[clocker]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:

Turnabout is fair play...
ID is part of God's general revelationWhich any right thinking person accepts. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the BibleAlthough the Bible should be enough.... That's why, for instance, the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies invited me to lecture on intelligent design and warmly embraced my message (this happened in October 2003). Just about anyone who is not wedded to a pure materialism agrees that some sort of design or purpose underlies natureAt least "anyone" whose opinion I would care to cite. Intelligent design not only gives a voice to these people, but also gives them the tools to dismantle materialismAnd it's so easy! No proof required!.

Dismantling materialism is a good thingJust take MY word for it. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to ChristWhich is the whole point...DUH!.
Excellent!
From this point forward, my "perception" of Mr. Demski's writing shall be substituted for what was actually written and accepted as correct.

[j2k4]

Turnabout is fair play...
ID is part of God's general revelationWhich any right thinking person accepts. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the BibleAlthough the Bible should be enough.... That's why, for instance, the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies invited me to lecture on intelligent design and warmly embraced my message (this happened in October 2003). Just about anyone who is not wedded to a pure materialism agrees that some sort of design or purpose underlies natureAt least "anyone" whose opinion I would care to cite. Intelligent design not only gives a voice to these people, but also gives them the tools to dismantle materialismAnd it's so easy! No proof required!.

Dismantling materialism is a good thingJust take MY word for it. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to ChristWhich is the whole point...DUH!.
Excellent!
From this point forward, my "perception" of Mr. Demski's writing shall be substituted for what was actually written and accepted as correct.


Ah, but Mr. Demski is an advocate; the former is presented as Journalism.

An important difference, I'm sure you can agree.

So-

It is turnabout, yes indeed.

Fairplay?

Uh-uh.

My apple and your orange.

Thank you for furnishing such a splendid example of tactical oversight-liberal specie.

:P

[Busyman]

lets see...2 off of the top of my head.

1. Erosion patterns currently unexplainable to natural rivers will be observable.

2. Rapid devolution can be observed. (earth spin slowing, magnetic strength weakening, many star supernovas and no observed star births.)

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.
Hmmm...some people are backward indeed....

I happen to believe in intelligent design.....even apart from religion. However, how does number 1 and 2 make for scientific study...in relation to intelligent design?

Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

This is why folks pushing this are backwards. You are so pressed to force religion in schools (amazing too it's only Christianity) that you have done it illogically (from a scientific standpoint).

Even looking at some of this rhetoric from intelligent design pushers, it's just chock full of simple religious teaching and only a passing reference to science.

To sum it up, intelligent design pushers, or simply the parents nodding their heads in agreement for it to be in schools, are fucking stupid and don't know the difference between philosophy and science.

[crucial62]

what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

[GepperRankins]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:


maybe opposing parties should be refered to as just reds and blues in future then :unsure: or would that insinuate one party were evil comunists.

go home. J2. you n00b




i was bought up in roman catholic schools and had 3-4 hours a week RE (and church in primary school). i turned out to be a good god-fearing athiest. maybe that was because i had science lessons that weren't corrupted by bullshit though so i could work out the distinction my self.

[Busyman]

what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?
Whether an intelligent design exists or not is moot.

ID shouldn't be in science class.

[clocker]

Notice how this is written:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian (VERY BAD!!!) conservatives (INCREDIBLY BAD AND EVIL!!!) against educators (GOOD, BENEFICIENT AND AGENDA-FREE!!!) and scientists (GOOD; THE SMARTEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET, LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!!!) in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Reuters...you can always count on them. :lol:
So let me make sure I have this right..."Christian conservatives", "educators" and "scientists" are all codewords we've been indoctrinated with by Reuters?

K then.
Removing the "bias" you imply leaves us with....
"Some people are suing some other people over some stuff. Could be important."

Oh yeah, much better.
No information, but no bias either.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.
That same 55% believe that NASCAR racers are just like their Fords/Chevys and that Jerry Springer's guests are real human beings.
We base science on public opinion polls now?*

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.
As long as you ignore Darwin that is.

*All bias, emotional connotations, and implications supplied by me...Reuters had no input here....

[Barbarossa]

lets see...2 off of the top of my head.

1. Erosion patterns currently unexplainable to natural rivers will be observable.

2. Rapid devolution can be observed. (earth spin slowing, magnetic strength weakening, many star supernovas and no observed star births.)

Sorry, though, as shown my my absence, I don't really have the time, or the capacity to spell out the intelligent design theory out, but you can just as easily google it. (make sure you pick a PRO intellegent design theorist to spell out the theory...)

but while your at it; try to find some evidence for cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution.

I think with an open mind you might find that major parts of evolution, is in fact religion.

1. So are there any? What does this mean?
2. What's your point?


As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated. Evolutionists can only hold out for so long; they are losing time to find that damning evidence in time for their presentation...

I guess they'll show us their evidence when the other lot shows them theirs... :P

what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

Hi! Good question, which seems to get glossed over all too readily...


Oh by the way, here is a picture of the universe...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0509/sky_wmap.jpg

Intelligently Designed???? :blink: Rubbish! A 3-year-old could do better.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Read the blurb. The universe will continue to expand forever.

What sort of a design is that? :huh: Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!! :lol:

[j2k4]

So let me make sure I have this right..."Christian conservatives", "educators" and "scientists" are all codewords we've been indoctrinated with by Reuters?

K then.
Removing the "bias" you imply leaves us with....
"Some people are suing some other people over some stuff. Could be important."

Oh yeah, much better.
No information, but no bias either.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.
That same 55% believe that NASCAR racers are just like their Fords/Chevys and that Jerry Springer's guests are real human beings.
We base science on public opinion polls now?*

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.
As long as you ignore Darwin that is.

*All bias, emotional connotations, and implications supplied by me...Reuters had no input here....

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.

[Busyman]

1. So are there any? What does this mean?
2. What's your point?


As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated. Evolutionists can only hold out for so long; they are losing time to find that damning evidence in time for their presentation...

I guess they'll show us their evidence when the other lot shows them theirs... :P

what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

Hi! Good question, which seems to get glossed over all too readily...


Oh by the way, here is a picture of the universe...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0509/sky_wmap.jpg

Intelligently Designed???? :blink: Rubbish! A 3-year-old could do better.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Read the blurb. The universe will continue to expand forever.

What sort of a design is that? :huh: Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!! :lol:
You don't know that. You missed the point as well. :dry:

manny is a Christian conservative in college btw. He will develop independent thought when he gets older.

Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

If people don't see this country being turned into one where religious zealots hold the power then you just as much sheep as Christian neocons. (I mean ffs, people laying down in the street 'cause The 10 Commandments were being removed from a courthouse :huh: )

This is coming from Christian (albeit a potty-mouthed one).

[clocker]

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?
Where did I say that?
We have been discussing a very specific news bit which you apparently consider the paragon of Reuteran bias.
I don't see it, that's all.

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.
If I considered Fox News as journalism at all I might be bothered.
Since I think they are merely a very effective advertising delivery vessel, applying journalistic standards to their performance would be unfair.

[j2k4]

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?
Where did I say that?
We have been discussing a very specific news bit which you apparently consider the paragon of Reuteran bias.
I don't see it, that's all.

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.
If I considered Fox News as journalism at all I might be bothered.
Since I think they are merely a very effective advertising delivery vessel, applying journalistic standards to their performance would be unfair.


Perhaps then you would (as a favor to an old pal) give forth with a quick one-sentence summation of your opinion(s) anent media bias, specifically:

Do you see it, and, if so, where?

[3RA1N1AC]

Point is chaps, science is not sacrosanct. Ask any decent physicist.
Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic...
i meant to comment on this earlier, but neglected to.

asking a decent physicist whether newton is correct on every single point... is very different from telling that decent physicist: "empirical methods have worked wonderfully and done a lot of good for humanity, but we've decided we're going to throw empiricism away so that we can change science's focus from the physical to the metaphysical and teach children about god and aliens in gov't funded science classes. in essence we're redefining your field of work & study." which is what this current controversy is about. uh. there already are academic disciplines which deal with metaphysics, they're just not the same as the one that deals with darwin's theory of evolution.

if the next project is to have geometry taught in poetry classes, poetry taught in geometry classes, or business management strategies taught in gym classes... then i disagree with all of that, in advance. :P

[Rat Faced]

@ JPaul,

I meant to answer your post on Newtonian Physics being taught in schools earlier and forgot.

Newtonian Physics is taught in schools because it does match what happens in our day to day lives... which is all you need to know at basic school level.

ie: If you throw something up, it will come down at such and such a speed (in other words, dont jump off a building)

Its also taught that Newtonian Physics is not universal, (at least in the school I went to, and I assume, all other UK Schools) and includes experiments with electricity and magnets that shows this (energy/matter interaction was not covered by Newtonian Theory as electricity had not been discovered as such at the time :P ) in Practical Physics classes.

When you get to higher level qualifications then you learn the other stuff depending upon your speciality as the field is vast; ie stuff that the normal person will never have to know about such as Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics etc etc


As to Intelligent Design... when they explain the appendix, tonsils and other crap left over from when we needed them at an earlier stage of evolution, i may be prepared to take them a little more seriously. :lol:

[j2k4]

Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic...
i meant to comment on this earlier, but neglected to.

asking a decent physicist whether newton is correct on every single point... is very different from telling that decent physicist: "empirical methods have worked wonderfully and done a lot of good for humanity, but we've decided we're going to throw empiricism away so that we can change science's focus from the physical to the metaphysical and teach children about god and aliens in gov't funded science classes. in essence we're redefining your field of work & study." which is what this current controversy is about. uh. there already are academic disciplines which deal with metaphysics, they're just not the same as the one that deals with darwin's theory of evolution.

if the next project is to have geometry taught in poetry classes, poetry taught in geometry classes, or business management strategies taught in gym classes... then i disagree with all of that, in advance. :P

A point:

While I'm sure many of us has a bit of physics study under his/her belt, I don't know that any of us hold a Doctorate in the field, and hence aren't truly qualified to hold forth in that arena, but...

I know that for any of us to assign the quality of "good" or "bad" to physicists is an over-step, or a malaprop.

I don't think we can question whether one or another physicist is more-or-less capable or educated than another, but surely we cannot be precluded from questioning, given that each of them must have at least a roughly equivalent fund of learning to draw from, how they might disagree, and on what basis they arrive at so drastically differing conclusions vis a vis something like global warming, or industrial policy and it's impact on the latest rash of hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones or tornadoes.

Since none of us can adequately parse their calculations (nor even properly determine the quality of same), we are left, ultimately, to co-opt whichever set of opinions we find convincing or supportive of our preconceptions.

All this is to say that we would do well to realize we are mostly whistling in the dark.

[vidcc]

If public schools are going to be compelled to teach Intelligent design (not creationism and is not religious... honest ;) ) then these private religious schools should be compelled to state that there is a debate that God might not exist and that there is a theory called evolution.

[spinningfreemanny]

Posted by 3ra1n1ac

okay, here's william a. dembski. he's considered an authority on the topic, right? writing in a letter on february 1st, 2005:

Wrong audience, wrong topic, wrong format.

He is writing to designists, obviously, and is not discussing the persuasiveness of the theory. If fact, this is exactly what I am pointing to. Where can you find the evidence of the designist theory? Hopefully in a court case looming...

Originally Posted by crucial62
what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

See, I believe in the beginning, God. You believe in the beginning, Dirt. Where did mass come from? now the notion that mass has the capacity to create the universe is sprung from a vivid imagination indeed.


Originally posted by Busyman
Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?

Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?

Busyman:
Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

heh, read my words, interpretation is not needed. An "argument" being "authenticated" does not mean a tyrannical majority will say whats right and wrong...in fact its quite opposite: if it is that way, how can there be an argument?

The problem is that there's not even an argument! the evolutionists have strong-armed confrontation for a long time; maybe sooner or later it will happen.

Finally; my aim is not to convert everyone to the intelligent design theory. the aim is to have an official discussion on it.

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one. See, the religion of some hang on the evolution theory as the religion of others hang on the intelligent design theory. Both have religious elements. so, if intelligent design is to ethereal for science, someone better check the evolution theory as well, especially considering that it is bad science that violates quite a few laws (yes, laws, not holes or gaps). According to the scientific method, it would be thrown out, if not for the religious sect behind it.

[vidcc]

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?



How is this evidence or proof of ID?

There are many factors involved in erosion. Just because a river flows lower than the entrance doesn't point to a "creator". rain falls from altitude and water gets into cracks. If this water freezes the cracks open and structural integrity is compromised. Rockfalls and wind erode.

Are you saying that the well known ice age is proof of ID?

[Rat Faced]

Too late anyway now :(

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

[Busyman]

Wrong audience, wrong topic, wrong format.

He is writing to designists, obviously, and is not discussing the persuasiveness of the theory. If fact, this is exactly what I am pointing to. Where can you find the evidence of the designist theory? Hopefully in a court case looming...

Originally Posted by crucial62
what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

See, I believe in the beginning, God. You believe in the beginning, Dirt. Where did mass come from? now the notion that mass has the capacity to create the universe is sprung from a vivid imagination indeed.


Originally posted by Busyman
Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?

Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?

Busyman:
Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

heh, read my words, interpretation is not needed. An "argument" being "authenticated" does not mean a tyrannical majority will say whats right and wrong...in fact its quite opposite: if it is that way, how can there be an argument?

The problem is that there's not even an argument! the evolutionists have strong-armed confrontation for a long time; maybe sooner or later it will happen.

Finally; my aim is not to convert everyone to the intelligent design theory. the aim is to have an official discussion on it.

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one. See, the religion of some hang on the evolution theory as the religion of others hang on the intelligent design theory. Both have religious elements. so, if intelligent design is to ethereal for science, someone better check the evolution theory as well, especially considering that it is bad science that violates quite a few laws (yes, laws, not holes or gaps). According to the scientific method, it would be thrown out, if not for the religious sect behind it.
See this is where me and you part ways and I step up with a brain.

I believe in ID. However, ID can exist with evolution (I'm not saying evolution is proven).

You can even have a Big Bang with ID, manny. :dry:

The fact is you lot are not trying to promote ID. You are trying to promote Christianity. Real ID can be independent of religion. However, it is not science in the least.

Wrap your head around it. You've been hanging around like minded folks on and off campus and have been herded to long. Stop being a sheep.

If you are so devout in your belief then you must believe in the AntiChrist too, right?

You also then believe there will be a leader that the many will believe in so strongly that they will be blind. (not saying that leader is here yet)

[3RA1N1AC]

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one.
if this is meant to imply that science is a religion because it says there is no god... i'd respond: science doesn't deny god, it just doesn't (and shouldn't) address that topic.

[j2k4]

Too late anyway now :(

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

My point remains, Rat.

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Period.

I'd like someone to square what most of you now take as gospel with the scientific surety of a few decades ago that we were all supposed to freeze to death in the then-imminent Ice Age.

Any takers? :naughty:

[Barbarossa]

Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?


I can't do better, but that's because I just see myself as a peculiar side-effect of a randomly natural universe...

You're the one saying the universe was designed like this, with billions of years of darkness and void ahead of it; I'm saying this is just the way it happened to be.

Other universes will work out differently. Maybe one of them contains intelligence... :dry:

Are you saying God didn't know how this universe was going to turn out? Like some celestial potter with a potters wheel, experimenting?

Is God the ultimate scientist? :huh:

[GepperRankins]

Too late anyway now :(



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

My point remains, Rat.

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Period.

I'd like someone to square what most of you now take as gospel with the scientific surety of a few decades ago that we were all supposed to freeze to death in the then-imminent Ice Age.

Any takers? :naughty:


i suppose you could say fox was biased because they bring on oil company reps to talk about global warming :wacko:

[ilw]

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

This is the entire argument summed up in a nutshell here,this isn't proof in any way shape or form of ID, it is evidence which supports the bible. This court case is about getting what kids are taught in science class to match up with what they learn in sunday school.

[GepperRankins]

SFM. if the grand canyons entrance was lower than the river it might be a miracle. the river is lower because the water eroded the rock. jeesh don't they teach simple geography where you grew up?

[Rat Faced]

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Consensus does exist.

It exists in that there is Global Warming.

Both the UN and the US scientific communities agree that it exists.

The UN and US Scientific Communities also agree that most of the increase is due to what humans are doing... and both refuse to say how much "most" is.

Research in 1987 forcast that a 1F increase in the Caribean would result in many more and much larger Hurricanes in that region. It also forcast more Tornado's on the mainland US. Both of these have happened.

Where the consensus stops, is what the results of Global Warming are.. there are so many variables that it is impossible to make a definitive model.

However, im sure that you fit a smoke alarm in case your house catches fire.

[ilw]

Is there really an increase in the number of severe hurricanes? I saw an article on BBC news and it had this chart
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40843000/gif/_40843284_hurricane3_history_gra416.gif (NB the bottom one is only the last 4 years)
It doesn't seem to show any obvious trend to me??

[GepperRankins]

Is there really an increase in the number of severe hurricanes? I saw an article on BBC news and it had this chart
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40843000/gif/_40843284_hurricane3_history_gra416.gif (NB the bottom one is only the last 4 years)
It doesn't seem to show any obvious trend to me??
:o

interesting.

[Rat Faced]

1F is well within the natural cycle, as im sure everyone would agree.

What would be concerning is an increase that doesnt go away, which is what is being predicted now...and the shear size of the hurricanes, as opposed to the category which only measures windspeed.

At current trends, we'll be at one of those peaks at the end of the decade (and think about the stuff that was happening in the world during the last peaks)..


Those figures are only for hurricanes striking the US mainland btw... not all of them do, and doesn't include this year.

For your info:

The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Median in the Carribean last year (2004) was 226... this is only the 2nd time since 1950 that its topped 200 (the other time was 1995 @ 228)

The 50 year average was 98.

The 10 year average was 140.

To put this into perspective:

Only 13 times has the hurricane season been classified as "Hyperactive"... 6 of these were within in the last 10 years.

The average number of named storms since 1995 has been 13, compared to 8.6 during the preceding 25 years.

Heres the PDI chart for the last 75 years in the Atlantic..

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/3600/pdicarribean6vv.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pdicarribean6vv.jpg)

The thick line @ 1949 is where monitoring by aircraft became accurate enough to include.

[j2k4]

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Consensus does exist.

It exists in that there is Global Warming.

Both the UN and the US scientific communities agree that it exists.

The UN and US Scientific Communities also agree that most of the increase is due to what humans are doing... and both refuse to say how much "most" is.

Research in 1987 forcast that a 1F increase in the Caribean would result in many more and much larger Hurricanes in that region. It also forcast more Tornado's on the mainland US. Both of these have happened.

Where the consensus stops, is what the results of Global Warming are.. there are so many variables that it is impossible to make a definitive model.

However, im sure that you fit a smoke alarm in case your house catches fire.

If I grant you your consensus, you must grant me that there is no consensus regarding the current trend's cause...is it cyclical or man-made?

You (and your scientists) prefer to entertain the notion that Mother Nature is not capable of ramping up global temps without the sinful complicity of man, personnified as George Bush.

How do you and your scientists differentiate between this new up-tick in temps and the great number of similar events throughout (pre-Industrial Age) time?

Please answer this before you further cloud the issue with another google?

You haven't explained the now-defunct idea of a new Ice Age yet, either.

Oh, and BTW-

A big, fat NO on the consensus thingie; it most certainly does NOT exist.

[Rat Faced]

J2, no one disagrees that there is a natural cycle of temperature variance.

The planet varies between Iceages and Tropical temperatures at the extreme and has much milder cycles between the two.

However we are now outside of what can be predicted in a natural cycle.


As to no Consensus..

Tell that to the inuits that have their sledges going through the ice for the 1st time ever. :P

I fail to see how that is so when every Scientific Study, including your own, (exc those financed by Industry/Energy) lead to the same conclusions.

The Whitehouse has also admitted that its happening now.


I dont ask a Chemist a Biology question as you appear to btw. :P

[j2k4]

J2, no one disagrees that there is a natural cycle of temperature variance.

The planet varies between Iceages and Tropical temperatures at the extreme and has much milder cycles between the two.

However we are now outside of what can be predicted in a natural cycle.

Says who?

Certainly not a consensus, not of physicists or any other scientific discipline; hell-even among environmental wackos there is no such consensus.

As to no Consensus..

Tell that to the inuits that have their sledges going through the ice for the 1st time ever. :P

What has consensus got to do with Inuits?

What precisely are the Inuits prepared to do if they are denied a consensus?

On that same note, I have heard studies that state a diet high in whale blubber causes extraordinary flatulence, which in turn aggravates the level of green-house gases.

Perhaps the Inuits ought to sign onto Kyoto...

I fail to see how that is so when every Scientific Study, including your own, (exc those financed by Industry/Energy) lead to the same conclusions.

The Whitehouse has also admitted that its happening now.

I believe Bush has acknowledged that the phenomenon of "global warming" exists; I do not recall him attributing it solely to the activities of man, specifically American man.

I dont ask a Chemist a Biology question as you appear to btw. :P

I appear to...what? :huh:

BTW-

Please be advised that you are not winning this debate.

[Rat Faced]

I believe Bush has acknowledged that the phenomenon of "global warming" exists; I do not recall him attributing it solely to the activities of man, specifically American man.

No one has said that its due "solely to the activities of man".

Both the UN and US Scientific academies have said that its "mostly" the activities of man.

And its only your opinion that im losing this debate.. just like its your opinion that there is no such thing as Global Warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[j2k4]

I believe Bush has acknowledged that the phenomenon of "global warming" exists; I do not recall him attributing it solely to the activities of man, specifically American man.

No one has said that its due "solely to the activities of man".

Both the UN and US Scientific academies have said that its "mostly" the activities of man.

And its only your opinion that im losing this debate.. just like its your opinion that there is no such thing as Global Warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

When did I disavow global warming?

I have questioned it's provenance, certainly.

I didn't say you were losing the debate, Rat; I merely stated you weren't winning it.

If you want to claim a stand-off, that's fine, and I suppose your stubbornness entitles you...but you are not winning. :P

Tell you what:

Put it to a poll-I'm sure you could win that. :D

[whypikonme]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.

[Busyman]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.
I tire of some of j2's posts 'cause they're cryptic until it's a bore (a hole in my head :wacko: ). However, I still welcome him..as a fellow American and still a good contributer to this board. I mean, at least he belongs here, Billy and his attitude is 10 times better than mine. (I never wanted you banned but the mods could at least follow through with their bans if they are going to institute them in the first place)
I would think only actual members of the board (like myself) should be able to light into him and those benefits should not extend to illegal aliens such as yourself. :ermm:

Fuck off btw.

[Biggles]

One would have more sympathy for ID as a possible cause for the universe kicking off if one did not suspect that it was simply camouflage for a specific creation myth from one specific religion.

One also suspects that it would be none too popular in some circles if the main proponents were suggesting that say the Hindu creation myths were the inspiration for ID.

Consequently it is hardly surprising that it is being treated like an unexploded landmine by those who teach in the scientific community.

I would agree with JP, ID as an analytical concept is fine but it should remain a tool devoid of any specific religious baggage.

[JPaul]

One would have more sympathy for ID as a possible cause for the universe kicking off if one did not suspect that it was simply camouflage for a specific creation myth from one specific religion.

One also suspects that it would be none too popular in some circles if the main proponents were suggesting that say the Hindu creation myths were the inspiration for ID.

Consequently it is hardly surprising that it is being treated like an unexploded landmine by those who teach in the scientific community.

I would agree with JP, ID as an analytical concept is fine but it should remain a tool devoid of any specific religious baggage.
Thank you for helping me to crystalize.

ID in and of itself is not religious. It is just a way to explain the nature of the universe.

However, if those teaching it say that the Intelligent Designer is this, or that, they describe her nature and they suggest that people should worship her, then that is religion.

[Biggles]

One would have more sympathy for ID as a possible cause for the universe kicking off if one did not suspect that it was simply camouflage for a specific creation myth from one specific religion.

One also suspects that it would be none too popular in some circles if the main proponents were suggesting that say the Hindu creation myths were the inspiration for ID.

Consequently it is hardly surprising that it is being treated like an unexploded landmine by those who teach in the scientific community.

I would agree with JP, ID as an analytical concept is fine but it should remain a tool devoid of any specific religious baggage.
Thank you for helping me to crystalize.

ID in and of itself is not religious. It is just a way to explain the nature of the universe.

However, if those teaching it say that the Intelligent Designer is this, or that, they describe her nature and they suggest that people should worship her, then that is religion.


:lol:

Absolutely, and I for one would not be for insisting that she be worshipped simply for the sake of it.

[JPaul]

Indeed, Gaia boy.

[j2k4]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.

Oh, gee-

Whatever shall I do? :(

BTW-

In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?

Why is it chippies like you feel the need to change I.D.s all the time?

Afraid you'll get pegged?

Too late; that's a done deal. :D

[Busyman]

Am l the only one here that's sick of j2k4's attitude lately?

l've read a good deal of his posts made over the last couple of years or so, and seen his arguments with regards to global warning, WMDs, and many other things. With the benefit of hindsight he has rarely been right about anything.

There is one outstanding question in the global warning debate: What if j2k4 and his ilk is wrong? Can we afford to take the chance? If any other country in the world were responsible for 40% of the world's pollution the US would be shouting from the rooftops for something to be done.

Maybe a few more Katrinas and Ritas will wake them up to what's going on.

Oh, gee-

Whatever shall I do? :(

BTW-

In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?

Why is it chippies like you feel the need to change I.D.s all the time?

Afraid you'll get pegged?

Too late; that's a done deal. :D
Exactly.

Somebody ban him already. He'll be back. Ban UKResident/RioDeLeo/whypikonme/Billy Dean and that I think of it...he was leftism. The mods always mentioned lefty used a proxy and 1234 didn't.

This is fun. Ban him and let's see what interesting moniker he comes up with next time. He's the board's reluctant Hare Krishna (sorry for teh spelllingg).

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!

1. Mods you go ahead and do that. Mmk?
2. j2 you can bury him in teh Pet Sematary.
3. I'll give him the new name upon check-in. I promise it will be unflattering.

:thumbsup: We'll All Do Our Part For FST!!! :thumbsup:

[j2k4]

Oh, gee-

Whatever shall I do? :(

BTW-

In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?

Why is it chippies like you feel the need to change I.D.s all the time?

Afraid you'll get pegged?

Too late; that's a done deal. :D
Exactly.

Somebody ban him already. He'll be back. Ban UKResident/RioDeLeo/whypikonme/Billy Dean and that I think of it...he was leftism. The mods always mentioned lefty used a proxy and 1234 didn't.

This is fun. Ban him and let's see what interesting moniker he comes up with next time. He's the board's reluctant Hare Krishna (sorry for teh spelllingg).

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!

1. Mods you go ahead and do that. Mmk?
2. j2 you can bury him in teh Pet Sematary.
3. I'll give him the new name upon check-in. I promise it will be unflattering.

:thumbsup: We'll All Do Our Part For FST!!! :thumbsup:

Well, I wouldn't have banned Laurel and Hardy because they weren't funny, and if such a fate were to befall Why...me, well....then we'd have to assign the bottom position on the totem to someone who might occasion our sympathy, and then we'd feel really guilty for sanctioning someone else.

I think we ought to keep him/her/it, out of respect for others who might attempt to sink lower, but fail.

In sum, it must be granted he makes a superb forum-idiot, and saves young Dave from being bottom duck, eh? ;)

[Busyman]

Exactly.

Somebody ban him already. He'll be back. Ban UKResident/RioDeLeo/whypikonme/Billy Dean and that I think of it...he was leftism. The mods always mentioned lefty used a proxy and 1234 didn't.

This is fun. Ban him and let's see what interesting moniker he comes up with next time. He's the board's reluctant Hare Krishna (sorry for teh spelllingg).

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!

1. Mods you go ahead and do that. Mmk?
2. j2 you can bury him in teh Pet Sematary.
3. I'll give him the new name upon check-in. I promise it will be unflattering.

:thumbsup: We'll All Do Our Part For FST!!! :thumbsup:

Well, I wouldn't have banned Laurel and Hardy because they weren't funny, and if such a fate were to befall Why...me, well....then we'd have to assign the bottom position on the totem to someone who might occasion our sympathy, and then we'd feel really guilty for sanctioning someone else.

I think we ought to keep him/her/it, out of respect for others who might attempt to sink lower, but fail.

In sum, it must be granted he makes a superb forum-idiot, and saves young Dave from being bottom duck, eh? ;)
You don't understand. That's the beauty of it. why Billy Dean left UKResident in Rio can be the forum punch dummy that we can shoot (even UKers), stab, mame, bludgeon, mangle, and mankle (!) to death....and he'd come back brand new.

No harm, No foul. ;)

[j2k4]

Well, I wouldn't have banned Laurel and Hardy because they weren't funny, and if such a fate were to befall Why...me, well....then we'd have to assign the bottom position on the totem to someone who might occasion our sympathy, and then we'd feel really guilty for sanctioning someone else.

I think we ought to keep him/her/it, out of respect for others who might attempt to sink lower, but fail.

In sum, it must be granted he makes a superb forum-idiot, and saves young Dave from being bottom duck, eh? ;)
You don't understand. That's the beauty of it. why Billy Dean left UKResident in Rio can be the forum punch dummy that we can shoot (even UKers), stab, mame, bludgeon, mangle, and mankle (!) to death....and he'd come back brand new.

No harm, No foul. ;)

Yes, yes, but the one thing we haven't really allowed him/her/it is the opportunity to "grow" into his/her/it's role here, as we've shunned him/her/it upon his/her/it's past appearances-we haven't had a Zardoz since, well, ZARDOZ.

I miss those days... :huh:

[peat moss]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:

[JPaul]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:
The disrespect of their peers.

Or perhaps the sky falling on their head.

[j2k4]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:

Oooooh-not this correspondent.

The "court case" will be on-going.

For quite a while.

This thread, though not premature, needs an intermission-perhaps we could rod manker for nine days?

We will need even more side-lighting to finish this, but that would be a good start, I think.

[Busyman]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:
I leave that to my board colleegluez. vid used to be good at starting topics.

You gotta leave work for someone else sometimes, petey mossberg weestro.

It gives them a sense of purpose.

[peat moss]

How is the court case going anyway . :lol:


Is it just me or do most of the posters that complain loud and hard never, ever seem to start a fucking topic ? What are they afraid of ? :ph34r:
The disrespect of their peers.

Or perhaps the sky falling on their head.



Well JP , that makes sence because sometimes my spelling is atrocious but so what . Have a opinion , some thing to add all 's good . Better than sitting on a fence no ?

[JPaul]

The disrespect of their peers.

Or perhaps the sky falling on their head.



Well JP , that makes sence because sometimes my spelling is atrocious but so what . Have a opinion , some thing to add all 's good . Better than sitting on a fence no ?
What in the name of gepulon does that mean.

Lounge please, modulaters.

[peat moss]

Well JP , that makes sence because sometimes my spelling is atrocious but so what . Have a opinion , some thing to add all 's good . Better than sitting on a fence no ?
What in the name of gepulon does that mean.

Lounge please, modulaters.




No I started this thread as a parent and put up with BS to get an understanding what a child must go thru , who are you to move my thread ?


Like fuck they'll will move it !

[Rat Faced]

Can manny, or anyone else explain Flavobacterium strain K172?

Or do they claim that the ability to digest Nylon has been with us forever and a day, even though the genum is well known and the mutation that caused the evolution is well documented...

[JPaul]

What in the name of gepulon does that mean.

Lounge please, modulaters.




No I started this thread as a parent and put up with BS to get an understanding what a child must go thru , who are you to move my thread ?


Like fuck they'll will move it !
I had though my use of the word "gepulon" would have indicated the jocular nature of my post.

Language only works well when one considers not only the words used, but also the order and context in which they are placed.

My apologies for any offence re "your" thread. I realize it must be precious to you. So as to avoid confusion, the previous sentence had an element of sarcasm attached to it.

[j2k4]

Can manny, or anyone else explain Flavobacterium strain K172?

Or do they claim that the ability to digest Nylon has been with us forever and a day, even though the genum is well known and the mutation that caused the evolution is well documented...

Context and relevance, please? :snooty:

[JPaul]

The nucleotide sequence of repeated sequence I, which appears in five regions on nylon oligomer-degrading plasmid pOAD2, harbored in Flavobacterium sp. strain K172, was determined. The five regions of repeated sequence I had 880 bp of identical sequence, and the sequence was identical to that of IS6100, an insertion sequence classified in the IS6 family, initially found in Mycobacterium fortuitum. Sequences homologous to that of IS6100 were found for another nylon oligomer- degrading plasmid, pNAD2, harbored in Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87, by Southern hybridization experiments.

[j2k4]

The nucleotide sequence of repeated sequence I, which appears in five regions on nylon oligomer-degrading plasmid pOAD2, harbored in Flavobacterium sp. strain K172, was determined. The five regions of repeated sequence I had 880 bp of identical sequence, and the sequence was identical to that of IS6100, an insertion sequence classified in the IS6 family, initially found in Mycobacterium fortuitum. Sequences homologous to that of IS6100 were found for another nylon oligomer- degrading plasmid, pNAD2, harbored in Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87, by Southern hybridization experiments.

Oh, that. :huh:

[JPaul]

It must have slipped your mind.

[peat moss]

No I started this thread as a parent and put up with BS to get an understanding what a child must go thru , who are you to move my thread ?


Like fuck they'll will move it !
I had though my use of the word "gepulon" would have indicated the jocular nature of my post.

Language only works well when one considers not only the words used, but also the order and context in which they are placed.

My apologies for any offence re "your" thread. I realize it must be precious to you. So as to avoid confusion, the previous sentence had an element of sarcasm attached to it.



Please accept my apology JP , I did n't mean to sound like such an asshole or claim a thread as mine. Just tired I guess , I read it wrong and should learn to spell better . :blushing:


I think when you have three little ones in school , topics like these hit a little harder mabye ?

[JPaul]

No old bean, please accept my apologies, my retort was uncalled for and harsh.

I do know how you feel tho'. I have four, aged 20, 17, 12 and 7. Three still at school and one working but staying at home.

I have had at least one child in school for the last 15 years, two for the last 12 years, three for the last 7 years.

It is highly likely that it will be another 10 years before I am a school free zone. Not counting tertiary education.

Loike I said, I know how you feel.

[Barbarossa]

The nucleotide sequence of repeated sequence I, which appears in five regions on nylon oligomer-degrading plasmid pOAD2, harbored in Flavobacterium sp. strain K172, was determined. The five regions of repeated sequence I had 880 bp of identical sequence, and the sequence was identical to that of IS6100, an insertion sequence classified in the IS6 family, initially found in Mycobacterium fortuitum. Sequences homologous to that of IS6100 were found for another nylon oligomer- degrading plasmid, pNAD2, harbored in Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87, by Southern hybridization experiments.

This is simply the greatest paragraph ever! :cool:



What does it mean? :unsure:

[JPaul]

Some bactria can eat cheap clothes.

[j2k4]

Some bactria can eat cheap clothes.

Like moths, only smaller and more tenacious. :)

[JPaul]

Some bactria can eat cheap clothes.

Like moths, only smaller and more tenacious. :)
And with an "e" in bacteria. :blushing:

[j2k4]

Like moths, only smaller and more tenacious. :)
And with an "e" in bacteria. :blushing:

I had, perhaps prematurely, ceded spelling discipline on the board to manker.

He is not doing himself credit on this point.

I am seriously re-considering his tenure thus, even though I myself commited a particularly egregious error this past weekend.

[clocker]

even though I myself commited a particularly egregious error this past weekend.
You mean that "Delay in '08" tattoo you just got?

Pshaw...nobody will notice that.

[whypikonme]

Kill him. KILL HIM. kiLl HimM!!!!!
l've always thought of you as rather childish and immature, after reading your viewing habits in another thread, l now know l was right. All this big man, gun-toting rhetoric of yours is just a front. l don't know much about the US education system, but l'm guessing 9th grade? 10th?


In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?
Quite easy really, l looked here. (http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2941&page=1&pp=10)


Here's a part of your very first post, telling us how dangerous Saddam was with his WMDs.

WE NEED TO REMOVE SADDAM NOW, BEFORE THE POTENTIAL FOR DESTRUCTION BECOMES EVEN GREATER. THOSE WHO DOUBT THAT THE POTENTIAL IS ESCALATING AS WE DEBATE THIS ARE KIDDING THEMSELVES.
Who's kidding who now? :lol:

[Busyman]

l've always thought of you as rather childish and immature, after reading your viewing habits in another thread, l now know l was right. All this big man, gun-toting rhetoric of yours is just a front. l don't know much about the US education system, but l'm guessing 9th grade? 10th?

Wtf big man? :lol: :lol: I'm 5'9".

What gun-toting rhetoric?

I simply own guns dipshit. I don't walk around with them. I don't carry it in the car.
How the fuck is it immature to watch Nip/Tuck? :lol: :lol: :lol: (I haven't watched one episode this season though :unsure: )

I'll keep being Busyman and you'll keep being whateverthefuckyournameistoday.

I get to mark Some College on my resume. My high-school education probably equaled most of your college education anyway. Really. :snooty:

I take that back, whypikasmallboogerwhenyoucouldfindgold. You can't put "I use Google!!!" on your resume. Back to your hovel. :ermm:

[vidcc]

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/intelligentdesign.gif

[j2k4]

l've always thought of you as rather childish and immature, after reading your viewing habits in another thread, l now know l was right. All this big man, gun-toting rhetoric of yours is just a front. l don't know much about the US education system, but l'm guessing 9th grade? 10th?


In what incarnations have you read my posts "...over the past couple of years or so..."?
Quite easy really, l looked here. (http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=2941&page=1&pp=10)

I would think any reader of this thread would have properly assumed my query was with regard to your identity(s) over "the past couple of years".

One cannot know, however, whether your oversight in this instance is intentional or deceitful, given your dubious presence here.

Here's a part of your very first post, telling us how dangerous Saddam was with his WMDs.

WE NEED TO REMOVE SADDAM NOW, BEFORE THE POTENTIAL FOR DESTRUCTION BECOMES EVEN GREATER. THOSE WHO DOUBT THAT THE POTENTIAL IS ESCALATING AS WE DEBATE THIS ARE KIDDING THEMSELVES.
Who's kidding who now? :lol:

That is not my "very first post".

In any case, we all know you weren't on the scene here until much later on, most likely because you hadn't/haven't the fortitude to comment going in, but are cursed merely with the nit-picker's imperative to try to cause trouble when- and wherever you can.

You follow the debate with a mop and bucket, nothing more. ;)

[whypikonme]

Wtf big man? :lol: :lol: I'm 5'9".

What gun-toting rhetoric?

I simply own guns dipshit. I don't walk around with them. I don't carry it in the car.
How the fuck is it immature to watch Nip/Tuck? :lol: :lol: :lol: (I haven't watched one episode this season though :unsure: )

I'll keep being Busyman and you'll keep being whateverthefuckyournameistoday.

I get to mark Some College on my resume. My high-school education probably equaled most of your college education anyway. Really. :snooty:

I take that back, whypikasmallboogerwhenyoucouldfindgold. You can't put "I use Google!!!" on your resume. Back to your hovel. :ermm:

l'm sorry but you're just making it worse ... you're a shortarse, and you didn't even go to uni! Besides which, l can't take someone seriously who watches the Cosby Show.

[whypikonme]

In any case, we all know you weren't on the scene here until much later on, most likely because you hadn't/haven't the fortitude to comment going in, but are cursed merely with the nit-picker's imperative to try to cause trouble when- and wherever you can.

You follow the debate with a mop and bucket, nothing more. [/COLOR][/I] ;)

Now, now, Kev, don't get your knickers in a twist, it's not good for the heart. :naughty:

[Busyman]

Wtf big man? :lol: :lol: I'm 5'9".

What gun-toting rhetoric?

I simply own guns dipshit. I don't walk around with them. I don't carry it in the car.
How the fuck is it immature to watch Nip/Tuck? :lol: :lol: :lol: (I haven't watched one episode this season though :unsure: )

I'll keep being Busyman and you'll keep being whateverthefuckyournameistoday.

I get to mark Some College on my resume. My high-school education probably equaled most of your college education anyway. Really. :snooty:

I take that back, whypikasmallboogerwhenyoucouldfindgold. You can't put "I use Google!!!" on your resume. Back to your hovel. :ermm:

l'm sorry but you're just making it worse ... you're a shortarse, and you didn't even go to uni! Besides which, l can't take someone seriously who watches the Cosby Show.
Wtf is uni? Is that the white horse with the horn you like to ride the arse of?

and shortarse? Shouldn't you be trying to hurt my feelings instead of making me laugh from an insult? :lol: :lol: Record that shit in your Australian accent and post it. It would make my minute.

Btw the Cosby Show has been off the air for over ten years now. :blink: ....but it was quite good. :)

[3RA1N1AC]

l'm sorry but you're just making it worse ... you're a shortarse, and you didn't even go to uni!
Wtf is uni? Is that the white horse with the horn you like to ride the arse of?

and shortarse?
maybe he is confused about some american colloquialisms. and about imperial measurements?... he might be on the metric system.

5 foot 9 inches. 1.75 meter. that's as average as average can be, right now, for american males.

busyman didn't say whether or not he attended "uni." in the united states we formally refer to secondary education as "high school," and a variety of tertiary educations (university, junior/community college [equivalent to the first two years of university], and some vocational schools) are more informally referred to as "college." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College#British_and_American_usage_contrasted) college never means secondary education in american parlance, unlike the definition of college in some other countries (such as australia?).

so... busy, i'm guessing that maybe whypikonme mistakenly thought you were using "college" to refer to some other form of high school. :lol:

[peat moss]

Does four years of high school count ? You know two years of grade 8 , two years of grade 9 ........... Just wondering .

[whypikonme]

No confusion 3RAINIAC, to me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me, and especially funny considering he talks like he was 7 feet 6.

As to uni, l was, of course, talking about unicorns, well done shorty.

[manker]

To me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me.Righty-o, Billy.

I seem to remember a thread dedicated to your diminuitive stature. The thread was titled "Is Billy Really Malcolm Glazer?" -- It was a poll, as I recall.

Pics of Glazer:
http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/Rikk.gif http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/BillyDean.gif http://img79.exs.cx/img79/9720/BillyDean2.gif

Pics of Billy:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2003-01/6386086.jpg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/graphics/2004/02/17/sfnman170204.jpg http://sportserver.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_content/935-manu.jpg

It's hard to tell the two apart, imo.

Are you quite sure that you didn't get the numbers mixed up. You infer that you're 6'3" but I think 3'6" is probably nearer the mark.

:)

[Barbarossa]

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/4673bf3b03147bb3ef398a3293a4cd8e/image/computer.jpe

[j2k4]

In any case, we all know you weren't on the scene here until much later on, most likely because you hadn't/haven't the fortitude to comment going in, but are cursed merely with the nit-picker's imperative to try to cause trouble when- and wherever you can.

You follow the debate with a mop and bucket, nothing more. [/COLOR][/I] ;)

Now, now, Kev, don't get your knickers in a twist, it's not good for the heart. :naughty:

Ah, these short workouts are good for me.

No muss, and very little fuss...:P

[Busyman]

As to uni, l was, of course, talking about unicorns, well done shorty.
Cool I was right then. It was that....white horse with the horn you like to ride the arse of

No confusion 3RAINIAC, to me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me, and especially funny considering he talks like he was 7 feet 6.
It doesn't matter how tall you are.

One hit and you'll go down like a 5 dollar and 75 cent prostitute.

Your height means shit to me. I might develop a Napoleon complex up in here. :lol: :lol:

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?

[JPaul]

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?
BIGLY

[j2k4]

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?
BIGLY

Perhaps we should consult Les? :)

[Busyman]

edit: btw how the hell does one talk like they're 7'6"?
BIGLY
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[JPaul]

BIGLY

Perhaps we should consult Les? :)
:lol:

Funny, I thought something the same whilst posting. :ph34r:

[fkdup74]

No confusion 3RAINIAC, to me 5 feet 9 inches is short, 6 inches shorter than me, and especially funny considering he talks like he was 7 feet 6.

funny, because your attitude is more of that which we call 'Little Man's Syndrome',
or, if you prefer, as Busy put it, the 'Napolean Complex'
many names for it really, but all the same symptoms ;)

anyhoo.......

[whypikonme]

funny, because your attitude is more of that which we call 'Little Man's Syndrome',
or, if you prefer, as Busy put it, the 'Napolean Complex'
many names for it really, but all the same symptoms ;)

anyhoo.......

Really? Should l care? Do you ever bother to read posts before you comment?

Nice username, by the way, suits you.

[fkdup74]

Do you ever bother to read posts before you comment?

I read the entire thread dick :dry:
and I dont remember seeing you until you decided to pipe in with a shot at j2k
hmmmm......yep, I just re-browsed the entire thread
don't see you doing anything but taking shots at ppl
so.....you came here looking for trouble it seems
well you got it at the expense of decent forum members' time
bet that made your day ya fuckin wanker

Nice username, by the way, suits you.

glad you noticed
now gtfo, nobody likes you
just.....I don't know, die or somethin ffs


anyway.......on topic..........

the ACLU can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned
I really wonder if they'd defend a Christian in court if they tried to remove the teachings of evolution because they found it offensive?
I seriously doubt it, because they don't give a shit about civil liberties
they're anti-Christians with too much time and money, period.

am I saying that ID belongs in school? no
am I saying it should be thrown out? no
look at other ways to institute it maybe
braniac made a good point, throw it in with philosophy or somethin, make it an elective, etc

but no, according to the ACLU it has to go
even if it was somehow proven that it has valid educational value,
if it has to do with Christianity in any respect it doesn't belong

and the fucking courts keep letting them get away with this shit
I just don't get it :huh:

[whypikonme]

I just don't get it :huh:

Me neither, do you talk the way you write? No wonder you picked that name.

[Busyman]

anyway.......on topic..........

the ACLU can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned
I really wonder if they'd defend a Christian in court if they tried to remove the teachings of evolution because they found it offensive?
I seriously doubt it, because they don't give a shit about civil liberties
they're anti-Christians with too much time and money, period.

am I saying that ID belongs in school? no
am I saying it should be thrown out? no
look at other ways to institute it maybe
braniac made a good point, throw it in with philosophy or somethin, make it an elective, etc

but no, according to the ACLU it has to go
even if it was somehow proven that it has valid educational value,
if it has to do with Christianity in any respect it doesn't belong

and the fucking courts keep letting them get away with this shit
I just don't get it :huh:
The problem is that the folks pushing for ID in classroom are

1. Pushing for their own brand of ID, the Christian brand.

2. Pushing for it to be in science class.

In those cases it should be thrown out.

If they were smart they'd push for it in philosophy