WE Blog

The Epa scientists (term being used loosely} leave much to be desired when it comes to truth.

Please read the attached article.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams050708.php3

“Is the war on science phony?” Obviously the guy hasn’t lived through EvoWars I & II here in Kansas. And he hasn’t seen the propaganda piece “Expelled,” more accurately described by its subtitle: “No Intelligence Allowed.”

Gerson goes down the ‘values’ rabbit trail, completely ignoring evolution, climate change and the dozens of cases of science silenced by this administration. Gerson also ignores the hundreds of government scientists who complain of political interference.

It hasn’t just been the EPA scientists who’ve been silenced. NOAA, the CDC, NASA, and the FDA have all been subjected to censorship by this administration when the data yielded results the Bushies didn’t like.

Rather like how Stalin purged Darwin’s ideas in favor of Lysenkoism. Hopefully the Bushies’ policies won’t go that far and let millions die as a result.

The problem now days is not if we are in a phony war on science, rather, can we win the war on phony science.

The left uses science as a political weapon and finances only those projects that are politically correct.

Environmentalists Still Can’t Get It Right

By WALTER E. WILLIAMS

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and that by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50% of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they (Americans) will, if permitted, be using all of them.”

In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.” Harvard biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 “somewhere between 75% and 85% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association: There’s a 1,000- to 2,500- year supply.

Here are my questions:

In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man-made global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?

In 1939, when the Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?

Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to man-made global warming?

Here are a few facts:

More than 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.

Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse-gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Same old, same old: Yet another flatulent political flack attacking the processes of science for nakedly political reasons. Is anyone surprised by his credentials?:

Michael John Gerson (born May 15, 1964, New Jersey) is an Evangelical Christian[1] op-ed columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.[2] He served as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006. A member of the White House Iraq Group,[3] Gerson was called “the conscience of the White House” by some admirers.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson

What makes this even better is that his own example–stem-cell research–is refuted by the cold reality of what actually was done:

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona on Tuesday in a hearing with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said the Bush administration routinely blocked him from speaking out or issuing reports on human embryonic stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education, emergency contraception and other sensitive public health issues while he was serving in the position, the Washington Post reports.

. . .more. . .

He said the administration often edited his speeches for politically controversial content and encouraged him to attend internal “political pep rallies,” the Wall Street Journal reports (Meckler, Wall Street Journal, 7/11). In addition, Carmona said he was required to mention Bush three times on every page of his speeches and was asked to make speeches to promote Republican political candidates, the New York Times reports. Carmona did not disclose the names of the administration officials who pressured him to support a political agenda over a scientific one. However, he said the officials included assistant HHS secretaries and top political appointees outside the department (Harris, New York Times, 7/11).

“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Carmona said. “The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds,” he added.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76600.php

Walter Williams?

Is that the same Walter Williams big house black man who sits in for Neal Boortz and brags on abusing his wife?

This must be phony science too. The great war on terror would not be fought with such demonic weapons.

Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay.
Miller AC, Stewart M, Brooks K, Shi L, Page N.

Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA. millera@mx.afrri.usuhs.mil

Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense heavy metal used primarily in military applications. Published data from our laboratory have demonstrated that DU exposure in vitro to immortalized human osteoblast cells (HOS) is both neoplastically transforming and genotoxic. DU possesses both a radiological (alpha particle) and a chemical (metal) component. Since DU has a low-specific activity in comparison to natural uranium, it is not considered to be a significant radiological hazard. In the current study we demonstrate that DU can generate oxidative DNA damage and can also catalyze reactions that induce hydroxyl radicals in the absence of significant alpha particle decay.

Experiments were conducted under conditions in which chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was calculated to exceed the radiolytic generation by one million-fold.

The data showed that markers of oxidative DNA base damage, thymine glycol and 8-deoxyguanosine could be induced from DU-catalyzed reactions of hydrogen peroxide and ascorbate similarly to those occurring in the presence of iron catalysts. DU was 6-fold more efficient than iron at catalyzing the oxidation of ascorbate at pH 7. These data not only demonstrate that DU at pH 7 can induced oxidative DNA damage in the absence of significant alpha particle decay, but also suggest that DU can induce carcinogenic lesions, e.g. oxidative DNA lesions, through interaction with a cellular oxygen species.

The term “War on Science” is a political term designed to label legitimate critics of some scientific conclusions.

The source of any controversy is not science, which is wonderful and has been responsible for most of humanity’s advances. But rather the interpretation of the evidence and conclusions by scientists in certain areas, some with an agenda unrelated to scientific truth. Their arguably biased interpretation of the evidence makes it more opinion than science.

And I don’t think that it is debatable that some scientists have an agenda.

Walker, with all due respect, what is this “war on religion”? Yeah, I’ve heard of Chris Mooney’s other book :), “I Don’t Believe In Atheists“, but it seems to me that he’s making much hay over a handful of cranky atheists shouting in the wilderness. I base that upon an interview wherein he complains at length about Christopher Hitchens (who is an insufferable ass–that’s not new), and a few other people, but doesn’t point to any mass movement, let alone a “war on religion” (and to be fair, I don’t think Mooney was claiming that either).

Please enlighten me.

Another element that is included in the alleged “War on Science” are efforts to inject morality into science. The embryonic stem cell and cloning areas are a good example, and an excellent demonstration of why there must be moral discussion and guidance for science outside of science.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” –Albert Einstein

The war on science is not phony. The war on science is stupid. Science will take care of itself regardless of anyone’s particular opinion.

Rage, with all due respect, there is a war on religion going on. Just read past threads. If this small group can be as divisive as it is, then I would guess that, exponentially, it amounts to a undeclared war. Rather stupid when one thinks about it.

“Is that the same Walter Williams big house black man…”

BlueJay
Posted May 8, 2008 at 7:23 am

You represent the Libs nicely. We have always known that you people are like this.

I get Williams confused with ANOTHER big house black man named Herman Cain I think. But I’m pretty sure it is Williams gets his kicks bragging about abusing his wife.

“then somehow life had to have been created from non-life by unknown natural forces. ”

Not at all.

Life is chemistry. Chemistry can do a lot in deep time.

BJ you should realize that radio commentators are entertainers. That is how they make their living – amusing the masses.

Obviously his wife isn’t too upset about the gifts she gets – she is still married to him. You need to find a new song to sing.

Darwinism is as faith based as Christianity. I’ll admit it – how about you?

What it all boils down to is funding the state religion……………

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

I think Dogs created life, look, they rule the world, only something as clever as dogs would manipulate people into taking care of them. Actually I think the cats are in on it to, and what is God spelled backwards, doG.

Junior talking about science – lmao.

This is the guy that calls coal, dinosaur fuel.

What a maroon.

Dogs and cats are angels. They keep track of us Barnie and report back to God. Why else do you suppose they are always gazing at us. Don’t EVER be mean to one and don’t have extra-marital sex in front of one. How did you suppose God knows? Watch out for flies, too.

“religious beliefs and science can coexist together without all this bs. But That ain’t going to happen until both sides decide to respect each other.” –

Nope, science thinks man and the universe is natural; some religions including all the desert goat-herder ones, thinks man and the universe is supernatural. There is no way the two philosphies can coincide.

Yeah, Jr is so much smarter than Sir Isaac newton

I see two sides to the issue of faith in science, but let’s get this out of the way first: what a scientist believes or doesn’t believe, so as it doesn’t warp the methodology or empirical validity of their work, is simply not relevant, and of no consequence.

As to Newton, one has to wonder how much further his investigations could have gone if he didn’t stop at some point and give obligatory credit to God. By the same token, had he been an atheist, he might not have been so motivated to understand things in the first place.

But I also have little doubt the Richard Feyman’s skeptical atheism helped motivate his desire to understand the natural world.

The trick, of course, is to judge science as science and religion as religion, as much some religious people object to the concept.

You see Junior the Blue Jay, aka J R, aka JBird, thinks I’m ANTI, MAX and probably any other poster who thinks differently than he does.

Extremists like Junior don’t need no stinkin’ proof to make accusations, they just keep making them.

These accusations, ladies and gentlemen, is the anti-thesis of science. It is even the anti-thesis of logic and common sense.

Duh Libs have already had their chance in a debate on science in Global Warming and provided their best and brightest in a PBS debate.

The GW Alarmists lost the debate in a heads up match with real scientists, not the crystal ball charlatins that the alarmists put forth.

Later on CraponAmerica will be on with one nic or the other posting his Communist propaganda why he hates America.

“He concluded: “As the depth of our insight into the wonderful works of God increases, the stronger are our feelings of awe and veneration in contemplating them and in endeavoring to approach their Author … So will he [the earnest student] by his studies and successive acquirements be led through nature up to nature’s God.” ”

Lord Kelvin

“There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church’s claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard’s 12th century dictum “Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other” still rings true.

If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist’s case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one’s hermeneutics (either the pastor’s or the scientist’s) must wrong.”

Dr. Allan Sandage

Antiscientific governance ends in

8 months, 14 days, 22 hours, 25 minutes.

Scientists will no longer be ignored, threatened, suppressed, and censored across agencies, across areas of expertise, and across issues.

I have no doubt that science’s path will eventually end up at….. God. Where else could it lead but to the truth? The problem is that while science plods along on its path, mostly unaware of the destination, scientists stray off the path in arrogance. We observe the wonder of God’s creation but fail to recognize it for what it is.

Hat tip to outlander

“We observe the wonder of God’s creation but fail to recognize it for what it is.”

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

The Argument From Desire

1. Ecstasy of St. Teresa by Gianlorenzo Bernini (Permission by Mark Harden; http://www.artchive.com)Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

The first premise implies a distinction of desires into two kinds: innate and externally conditioned, or natural and artificial. We naturally desire things like food, drink, sex, sleep, knowledge, friendship and beauty; and we naturally shun things like starvation, loneliness, ignorance and ugliness. We also desire (but not innately or naturally) things like sports cars, political office, flying through the air like Superman, the land of Oz and a Red Sox world championship.

Michael Gerson, evangelic christian, and speech writer for President Bush. An absolutely, unbiased, reliable, and balanced source. Without question!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5499701

Where is the Richard Dawkins thread on christianity, Phillip? It might be as useful to read as this loser.

“Science is nothing but doubt. And every scientific discovery and advancement is based on doubt.”

——————

Ah, if only that were true Monkey.

You see the problem we have is that in some cases opinions of someone with a PhD masquerade as “science”. And are treated as such by the ignorant. Thus any questioning of the opinion is “anti-science”. See my earlier post.

Science and objectivity

“Rupert Sheldrake summarizes this problem of objectivity brilliantly in his 1994 book “Illusions of Objectivity”:

Scientists generally feel the need to preserve an idealized self-image, not just for personal and professional reasons, hut also because this image is projected on to them by others. There are many people who put their faith in science rather than religion, and need to believe in its superior, objective authority. And to the extent that science replaces religion as the source of truth and values, then scientists become a kind of priesthood. As with priests in general, there is then a public expectation that they will live up to the ideals they preach: in the case of scientists, objectivity, rationality and the quest for truth. Some scientists, in their public appearances, can be noticed playing up to this role, which seems to invest them as cardinals of reason propounding salvation to an irrational public. There is also a strong disincentive for them to admit that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the beliefs and institutions that legitimize their own position. While it is relatively easy to admit that individuals may err, and to purify the community by expelling them, it is much harder to question the beliefs and idealizations on which the whole system depends.”

LJ that is a ‘right on’ article. Says what I have tried to say but does it much better than I ever did.

I promise not to ‘attack’ any scientist and will allow him/her their right to believe as they believe. In return I would like to be allowed to believe as I choose without ridicule or put downs or the name calling a thread on this subject always elicits.

Monkeyhawk
Posted May 8, 2008 at 9:56 am | Permalink

But your 3rd grader can’t tell the teacher that 2+2=5 because of a “miracle from God,” and even if your kid gets all the other 3rd graders (the “open marketplace”) to agree, the fact is 2+2=4.
——————————————-

Depends on which culture you come from and which type of math you wish to use and base number systems.

Sequentially driven math, sometimes referred to as inclusive math will allow 2+2=5 when considering number sets.

For instance:

When items are referred to as units or sets rather than equal parts.

A rope bridge that has four knots in it can be tied together only with another knot in the way of thinking of primitive tribe. That makes five knots where 2+2 = 5 in order to set forth a viable solution to the bridge problem.

It wouldn’t matter if the robe bridge had 40 knots (20 on each side), the knot tieing the two sets of numbers together forms the 41st knot, where 20+20=41. Thusly, the only solution for a bridge with two sets of 20 knots is 41 knots.

Modern mathemeticians will give an different name to the 41st knot, but the end result is the same. Commonly called in boolean operators as the joined operator of two sets.

Ancient tribes will argue that the 41st knot is not different, but simply part of the solution when joining two number sets of 20+20.

As in binary, zero (0) is counted as an integer. It doesn’t appear to have a value that can be useful in most instances, but it nonetheless exists and has practical applications.

So in some societies, it makes perfect sense that 2+2=5, because they count in sets, not individual, sequential digits.

So Regular, Religion is that philosphy in which two plus two equals five? I always thought so.

” We don’t run in herds” — ks grm.

Exactly what is a congregation if not a herd?

Beber, we have math on one hand and somehow that equals religion on the other hand. That is the logic I was talking about.

“When will Christians stop being suppressed, ridiculed and forced to continuely defend their faith?”

Grim as I look out on the landscape I see churches, many churches different sizes shape ect. All tax exempt. What I don’t see are concentration camps full of Christians being led to the ovens. What am I missing? If you are offended by liberals, hey were just entertaining ourselves.

Beber the herd I am talking about is the one that comes out on this blog at night.

grim says,
On the blog we get a thread on science – lets bash religion. A thread on abortion – lets bash religion. A thread on the homeless – lets bash religion. A thread on taxes – lets bash religion.

Do you get the idea?

I listen to rush, micheal and others just to you know get the idea. All they do is bash people like me. Then I come to the blog and hear the same thing. I’m sorry your faith isn’t strong don’t take it out on us.

It’s worth repeating:

I’ve seen some who profess loudly questioned, but usually their protestations declare a lot and the questions aren’t necessarily needed.

;-)

protest too much…

Here’s an old math puzzle that has been around for years and how it perfectly describes our sequential number thinking when it comes to solving math problems.

Three business people eat lunch in a restaurant. They estimate that the bill should come to $30. They split the bill 3 ways and pay 10 dollars each. When the actual bill comes, it is $25. Since this is not divisible by three, they each take a dollar back and leave the extra two dollars tip for the waiter. Since each paid nine dollars and nine times three is 27, plus two for the waiter is 29 Where did the other dollar go?

The problem most people puzzle with is thinking in terms of the old solution, which is 30 dollars.

That is the wrong way to look at it.

The new solution for the problem is now 25 dollars.

Look at this way, there were 30 one dollar bills set out on the table, each business person took one dollar back from the pile. (even steven)

Now, the solution for the bill is paid with each person paying an equal amount of 9 dollars each.

9 multiplied by 3 MINUS 2(tip) equals 25

The problem with thinking sequentially (dealing with the 30 dollars) rather than in number sets (25 dollars) is that we forget to include the solution number (2) as part of the set where the end product is satisfied. Also forgotten is that the returned portion (3 dollars) is no longer part of the solution set and shouldn’t be considered into the problem to figure the solution.

Just as in the rope bridge, where 2+2=5, the solution of (1) is considered part of the set to join the rope bridge together. Without the (1), the two parts could not be joined as a bridge and the solution of 2+2=4 would only satisfy the problem of having two equal parts added together make a sum total of those two equal parts, but do not provide a solution for making a rope bridge.

Quirky, I agree, but it’s an interesting approach to solution, set based mathematics.

beber
Posted May 8, 2008 at 10:26 am | Permalink
So Regular, Religion is that philosphy in which two plus two equals five? I always thought so
————-
Pay attention farm boy, you might learn something. :)

If the left were more secure in their faith in whatever – there would be no reason to put down others faith on a regular basis.

Back at ya baby,

If the right was more secure in itself It wouldn’t need to put us down. See fox news. clear channel com or any assorted wingnut outlets. Sorry grim not scared of your lunatic fringe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp9852hq0W0

Annie where did you did the idea I thought you should fear anything. You seem full of anxiety about something. I can assure you you have nothing to fear from me. And by the way I refer to you by your given name. Why do you feel the need to alter mine?

Grim,
I am merely an observer, but since you asked…….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbgs_0XeiMc

Annie is not scared of the “lunatic fringe” so she is content to blog and argue with them.

What kind of person is so self loathing as spend time discussing ideas with “lunatics”?

Annie what exactly was the youtube link supposed to mean? I guess I missed the message.

Monkey is someone on here advocating the flat earth theory? Humm??

What I saw Nathan say last night was that much of GW science is a by product of some politicians ambitious aspersions. Surely you can’t deny this is true.

Pure science is still out on the total impact of GW science – like it or not that the the truth.

Politicians are pushing it as a tool to capture voters. That is my OHO.

I don’t base this opinion on my faith. I have read the bible and see no references to GW so I have looked at scientists to see what they have to say about it.

Well Vet I see little in your post I disagree with. I live a good life. I do the things I choose to do. I have faith in Christ as my savior – my personal belief and not open to discussion.

Why do the arguments always start with ‘their faith’ says they believe in ridiculous things like ‘flat earth’ theory. How old is that?

What many on the left refuse to see is that many who don’t believe in evolution, abortion, etc… don’t have these beliefs because of a Christian faith but because they feel they are inherently wrong.

I guess I am tired of the old arguments and want to move beyond that.

That’s odd annie moose, I didn’t realize the left was keeping score on science versus religion. What does the scoreboard look like?

And what the heck is wrong with Civil War re-enactments and soggy fields – dat thar is jest plain fun. :D

I think Ms Moose must have got up on the wrong side of the bed. What an attitude problem. She just doesn’t get it. Christians don’t feel the need to defend their religion everyday. It is part of our life. Just something we are.

Why does the left have this irrational need to bash Christians everyday. Must be some pretty deep seated feeling of inadequacy.

I see your point ksgrm. There are hints within evolution that we exist just by random chance. That is an irresponsible view from science and one that requires a “religious” dogma.

To me the problem comes when values are in conflict. Homosexuality is a great example. I am supremely confident that I will never perform felatio. It just aint gonna happen. However, I feel no injury from two grown men doing so. As I have said so often from the Jeffersonian standpoint. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Abortion, rape, theft,etc. They all have a secular arguement as well as one based on Biblical Cannon.

The basis for Homesexuality is not reasonable because it only has an argument based on Biblical Cannon. These issue are where I see the most conflict.

VET – I have been married for nearly 37 years. Like you, I do not feel threatened if a gay couple wish to get married.

MH –

You do indeed argue just for sake of arguing, don’t you? We’re not in disagreement here.

Of course there is a difference between suppression and refutation. That some ideas are wrong doesn’t mean they are, or should be, suppressed. If one wants to come to the “marketplace” with the idea that the world is flat, he is welcome to do so. He will be met with other ideas, backed by evidence, that refutes same, of course. But he’s not barred, nor should be be, from proposing same. And I’d note that in that marketplace of ideas, the idea that the world is flat has been rejected; in other words, the marketplace of ideas works.

I’m not pretending the marketplace of ideas is scientific. It’s not. It’s not intended to be. Does science bring its ideas to that marketplace? Of course; and they stand, or fall, on their merit. Science would do well to remember that it does not have a monopoly on thought, and does not have all the answers; in fact, the most important questions it cannot answer at all.

You hang up on the word faith? All of life is faith, sir. The only difference is what you have faith in.

We’re not in different corners here, MH. Yeesh – a guy can’t even take a compliment when it’s given!! LIghten up, dude.

RFL, I don’t think that dogs can consent to sex or marriage. Gay men can. Also, to “redefine” presupposes that it is defined in the first place. It is only “defined” a certain way in your mind and within your views. I appreciate your attempt at making Homosexual Marriage a secular issue, but “that dog ain’t gonna hunt.”

“Ever tried to supervise a congregation? If so, you would know why it is not a herd” — littlejohn

A gaggle, then? Point conceded.

JMWalker
Posted May 8, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
The first paragraph pretty much sums up regs logic:
————————-
So once you completed long division JMWalker, what other math courses have you taken?

(chortles)

In that case RFL, lets just leave those Texas Mormons alone as well? Maybe one day you will come to accept pedophiles. As you say, Don’t want to be a hate monger. Will you spare me the Existential B.S. RFL? The only place that such distinction between man and woman existed was supposedly in your Bible. Of course that same Bible supposedly condemns eating shrimp to, but you must have amended that part of the regulation. Just admit that the only distinction about male/female marriage came from your Bible and that is the only authority you have to go on. Believe what you want, your authorized. Just don’t shit in my yard.

War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Bliss. AND, 2 + 2 = 5 — AND – Three grown men cant see the 30th dollar still on the table! LOL

I always knew we would one day see James trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 5. It only figures. He thinks he knows all! ROFL!! :roll:

Or do you have a scientific experiment, analysis, and determination that proves a snake talked to Eve, that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Jesus rose from the dead, or (as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claimed) that 9/11 was caused by Lesbians?

———-

Or MonkeyHawk, how about one that proves we all evolved from a common ancestor?

Minkey — great post at 3:42 p.m.!!

Chas
Posted May 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
Minkey — great post at 3:42 p.m.!!
————————————–
Predictable Chas

“Just admit that the only distinction about male/female marriage came from your Bible and that is the only authority you have to go on.”

I admit it freely Vet and I am sorry If I gave the wrong impression to you. The Biblical definition of marriage is my own and my definition is what it is because it matches the Biblical one.

I am confused why you are so upset that the Bible is the basis for how I define marriage.

So now, what authority do you have for denying the right of a man to marry his dog?

MH –

I think we’re talking past one another. You may well have good arguments for your positions. I may or may not agree with them. What you appear to propose, however, is to suppress points of view that you disagree with.

To take your initial argument: One may propose that the earth is flat. He’s wrong, of course. We can trot out myriad evidence that he’s wrong. However – would you suppress the expression of that idea? Would you bar anyone proclaiming that the world is flat?

It appears you would; if I’m wrong on that, I’ll apologize in advance. If I’m right, that’s where I think you’re wrong, and it reinforces my perception of the left which routinely advocates “free speech for me, but not for thee.” The only thing more dangerous than “wrong” ideas is the suppression of wrong ideas. It matters not how “idiotic” those ideas may be. It is not for you, or I, to dictate what they believe, or contribute to the conversation.

They may believe as a result of science. They may believe as a result of religion. It matters not. ALL those ideas are part of that marketplace of ideas, where ideas are collectively mulled over considered, tested, and either accepted or rejected. Science is part of that marketplace; in our society, a large part. But ideas and are not exempt from critical examination simply because they wear the label “science.”

And BTW – who is “you guys?” You’ve noted a number of “positions” I assume you disagree with, and with you presume I agree:

that every fertilized egg has the same rights as an adult, that the only-est problem in America is not enough guns, that the less tax you pay results in more government revenue, that teenagers won’t have sex if you don’t tell them about it…

You presume a lot. Each of those positions, of course, is a soundbite distortion of a position that reasonable persons may hold, and you know it. But rather than participate in good faith in an exchange of ideas, you instead misconstrue, ridicule, and attempt to marginalize those you disagree with.

Once again: free speech for me, but not for thee. You do exactly what you accuse those you disagree with of doing. To be blunt, MH, those on the right you ridicule often bring more good faith explanation of what they hold true and why than you do. You may disagree, and that’s fine. You, however, typically respond with ridicule, misstatement, strawmen, guilt by association, and marginizing those you disagree with. And you wonder why they become hostile?

The only thing more dangerous than a wrong idea is the suppression of ideas because they are “wrong.” If you don’t like that, take it up with the Founders; I think there’s a little thing called a First Amendment which protects just that marketplace of ideas. I know, given your position on the 2nd amendment, that you don’t put a lot of stock in the Constitution anyway, but you might just want to consider that one. . . .

Sorry. I’m getting testy, and i didn’t mean to. But I’ll stand by what I wrote nonetheless.

Chas coming into the conversation late I am sure you have not had time to read the entire thread. I don’t argue with anything that is provable by science. I am a big fan of science in fact as stated above. I really didn’t need you to translate MH’s post for me. I understood it fine. For some reason you felt the need to tell me my faith isn’t science. I guess you would need to tell me where I said it was.

My remark to you was because you have never once defended your faith on this blog and yet you claim to be a member of the clergy. I find that remarkable.

But that is me and not you. Gotta go.

Anyone ever notice how a lot of the regular posters here disappear for a couple of hours this time of day. They post all morning and afternoon then are gone from around 4PM to say 6PM.

Could it be they are driving home from work?

Grm — i dont NEED to defend my faith — That is why it is FAITH… What you have oberved aabout other theories of FAITH is great… wonderful even… And as a result, your faith is intact… I ws NOT interpreting Monkey’s post to you, and I have, in fact, read the thread!!

My point is that since Faith is not Science, the concepts of observation, comparison, etc. do not aapply to faith the same wasy as they do to science. That is all!! Faith needs NO Defense!! Nobody can, or wants to, take that from you!!

Also RFL, you can use your Bible to decide when to take a dump for all I care. Just make certain that such a basis is voluntary. You see, that is the concept here, voluntary. A man VOLUNTARILY marries a woman, or another man, whatever this woman or man VOLUNTARILY marries them back. If a dog can’t VOLUNTEER. Then the marriage is a bit crazy.

“Could it be they are driving home from work?”

I always thought it might be evening chow at the Food Service line, before evening recreation..

:-D

Chas
Posted May 8, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
Regular — The Rope Bridge argument is a fallacy. The knot in the bridge does not form one side of the equation. Remember balanced equations?
———————–
As I stated before Chas, this is not equations, it’s set theory as in concept sets.

This is way beyond college algebra and calculus. I don’t have the time nor the formal expertise to explain it to you Chas.

Whatever Chas, look up advanced mathematics and set theories applied physics.

Go and study about axioms of choioce, discrete space topology, then come back and give
me your analysis how much you really know about ’set theory’ Chase.

Just stating someone is wrong because you say so isn’t proof Chas.

You need to learn to back off when you have no clue of what your talking about.

Of course I do expect your typical response Chas. That is, you will accuse others of being fake or claim they post false knowledge or blah blah.

Just an example of your perpetual arm flailing.

Chas, get a clue – come back and talk when you have one.

As far as I’m concerned, “GMC70″ –

You can believe that every morning is the result of Bonzo the Sun God puking up daylight every morning from his lair in the Ozarks. But it ain’t science until you find the lair, or Bonzo, or some evidence that’s what happens vis a vis the evidence that the earth orbits around the sun and rotates every 24 hours or so.

But when you try to teach it as “science” you’ve got some problems. That’s not “suppression.” That’s… science.

As I stated before Chas, this is not equations, it’s set theory as in concept sets.

This is way beyond college algebra and calculus. I don’t have the time nor the formal expertise to explain it to you Chas.

Actually, it depends on if you’re breaking a Zeeblefetzer symmetry within a partially chocolate Yak group. Of course, chromatic edge number 2 cannot be bipartite unless the polyphonic bono is bipartisan.

Proving that irony is not dead, “Regular” posted –

“…learn to back off when you have no clue of what your [sic] talking about.”

I’m tempted to chortle.

#
Regular
Posted May 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

JMWalker
Posted May 8, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
The first paragraph pretty much sums up regs logic:
————————-
So once you completed long division JMWalker, what other math courses have you taken?

(chortles)
=========================================

O, let’s see: Advanced boolean algebra, advanced PLC programming using boolean algebra, Communications math (used on some old useless comm systems…real pain and died after about a year. Kind of like high threshold logic (HTL)), and the usual college math courses, and electronic systems math (design).

(snickers)

Heh Rage,

Didn’t realize you were a Mad Magazine admirer. It’s actually spelled Veeblefetzer. :D

True monkey, but every morning I have a reason to believe that as I walk out my front door (facing south) that the sun will be on my left side (east) and as I go home it will be on my right side(west). I believe that because there is a pattern that gives me a reason to believe that. I am convinced that my pattern is based on reason. Some people’s patterns are based on their paradigm. Self-fulfilling prophecies, Mind over matter, etc. I am guilty of them as much as the next guy I suppose. These paradigms are important. The plausability of a paradigm gives the illusion of science to all of us.

“The phrase “two plus two makes five” (or “2 + 2 = 5?) is sometimes used as a succinct and vivid representation of an illogical statement, especially one made and maintained to suit an ideological agenda.”

Your example of the same thing (2+2=5) only serves to reinforce the paragraph. 2+2=5 is an illogical statement, and any attempt to use it it terms of the real world, not some distant, set fixated, tribe. 2+2=5 is an illogical statement; it is wrong on too many levels. It is like saying nuclear fusion doesn’t add up. This is not Hogswort; it is the real world. You are, indeed, attempting to maintain an ideological agenda.

Psst! Look at Regular’s first link (emphasis added):

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

In my humble opinion, Reggie is yanking y’alls chains, just because he can.

(chortles)

bth
Posted May 8, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
VET – it should be on your left side moth times. Leaving the house you would be facing south with the sun to your left (east). In the evening you should be going north (into your house) with the sun again at your left (now west)
——————–
Maybe he drives on one of those roads designed by the Kansas Highway department.

YOU see!!!!!paradigms!!!!!!!!!! I guess I mistyped. I would assume to be smoking a stogie on the same porch, facing the same direction after work. But alas, I am working late tonight. I hope this doesn’t mean that 2 + 2 =5. I can’t handle that tonight. LOL

Aww C’mon James, it is even too early for you to sink to obnoxious!! Dumbkopf!!

Monkeyhawk
Posted May 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

I’m tempted to chortle.
==============================

Please Monkey, dont do that!! Reg doesnt have enough bibs for both of you to “chortle” LOL

Rough Crowd Regular?

Tis a normal day LLTVET. :)

It’s feeding time at the zoo and I’m just helping the keepers out by tossing a few peanuts in the primate section. :D

Where was it explained??

Chas
Posted May 8, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
Where was it explained??
———————-

Regular
Posted May 8, 2008 at 10:54 am | Permalink
Here’s an old math puzzle that has been around for years and how it perfectly describes our sequential number thinking when it comes to solving math problems.

Three business people eat lunch in a restaurant. They estimate that the bill should come to $30. They split the bill 3 ways and pay 10 dollars each. When the actual bill comes, it is $25. Since this is not divisible by three, they each take a dollar back and leave the extra two dollars tip for the waiter. Since each paid nine dollars and nine times three is 27, plus two for the waiter is 29 Where did the other dollar go?

The problem most people puzzle with is thinking in terms of the old solution, which is 30 dollars.

That is the wrong way to look at it.

The new solution for the problem is now 25 dollars.

Chas, alternative solutions doesn’t mean my solution was wrong, just different.

Stop arguing just because you can.

You’re starting to look ridiculous and petty.

No sir – you are looking just plain stupid, if you cant figure out that puzzle the way it is originally stated!! It isnt a matter of solutions… How’s that for your first clue??

Yep… as suspected — Nothing of substance from James when cornered — Just stupid goddam ad hominem bullshit!!! Just as always!!

JERK!!!

James — The “problem” in the puzzle is one with which you should be most acquainted — it’s mis-direction.

The “puzzle” says they each picked up $1 from their pile of 30 dollar bills… Which left 27 — The “puzzle” THEN says they gave $2 to the waiter (poor tippers)… THEN, the puzzle says you add the $2 to the $27, arriving at $29 — THAT is the mis-direction…

The answer is that you dont ADD $2 to the $27 — but rather SUBTRACT the $2…

Leaving the proper balance due of $25!!

As I stated quite clearly, it has nothing to do with “solutions” — Thus meaning that your invention of a new solution is pointless!! Worthless even!!

It’s a math problem… sort of… but more of a “word” problem!!

BTW, my youngest daughter showed me that when she was 16 yrs. old, when she was a high school Senior!!

Nice try with your stupid ad hominems, rather than working out the REAL puzzle!!

“caught, scaled and gutted like the carp he is.”

Really? I always just throw the carp up on the bank to rot in the sun.

#
Regular
Posted May 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
Contextual observation notwithstanding the paragons of mutual exclusion cannot predicate co-linear points of argument for or against.

How’s that for an answer?

(pokes JM Walker in the eyes with the 3 stooges forked fingers method)
==============================================
Your “pokes” are well in line with the three stooges, as is your logic. Contextual observation notwithstanding? Right: lets throw out logic, and go with the three stooges instead. Maybe they can explain a 7000 year old universe, and the illogic of 2+2=whatevertheywantittobe.

As I stated earlier, your agenda, and the box you live in, dictates you MUST conclude there is logic in 2+2=5. For all others, including myself, in this universe 2+2=4, and 2-2=0.

The only thing is, JM Walker, you have to believe that there really is such a thing as “2″ LOL

/sarcasm off

Actually J M Walker, and I’m pretty sure you know this, I’m not a strict creationist when it comes to interpreting the time of creation.

I have often talked about the formation of earth over billions of years, the existence of fossil evidence and etc.

But please to try again to dial in what you think I am thinking.

You appear to be having a very difficult time realizing what you are thinking, let alone tell others what they are thinking.

American_Way
Posted May 8, 2008 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
“I’d rather be a rotten carp”

Chas my post wasn’t directed at you at all.

As an avid fisherman, I was wondering who would go through all the trouble Regular described – for
a carp?
—————–
Carp ain’t real tasty, but if you pressure cook them and bake them like you would Salmon, they ain’t half bad. I only ate the medium size carp that I caught (3-8 pounds)

Carp! Fillet carp, place fillets on a board, season to taste, place board above coals, cook for 1/2 hour, eat board.

I didnt see the “ad hominnem”, I just saw the “appeal to ridicule”, a couple of “strawmen”, quite a few “personal attacks”, a “post hoc” or two, a couple of “begging the question” and countless “ignoring a common cause”….Oh there it is small m, minister robe. Got it.

Well Lost is on in 15 minutes. Would you be so kind as to share with me (tomorrow) how long it takes regular to accuse me of cowardice after I leave? If you don’t mind, will you try to convince him you agree regarding my cowardice. He might try the 2 + 2 =5 routine some more. If you can’t or are getting bored, I understand.

JMWalker
Posted May 8, 2008 at 8:41 pm | Permalink
But please to try again to dial in what you think I am thinking.

You appear to be having a very difficult time realizing what you are thinking, let alone tell others what they are thinking.
==============================================
If it is my job to “think what I think you’re thinking”, then a whole can of worms is open for any interpretation I so desire. And I really think you don’t want to go there:-)

————————————————
================================================
The inferential and transformational systematicity of your inference appears to be disjoined from the combinatorial syntax of the subject matter currently brought forth by logical proposition.

Heh, for some reason, I remembered an old cartoon satire of Al Haig from the early 80s. One particularly memorable line: “The aerially-locomoted creature which exhibits a certain promptitude enjoys enhanced worm-obtaining capabilities.”

#
Rage
Posted May 8, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

Heh, for some reason, I remembered an old cartoon satire of Al Haig from the early 80s. One particularly memorable line: “The aerially-locomoted creature which exhibits a certain promptitude enjoys enhanced worm-obtaining capabilities.”
================================================

Da oily boid gits da woim!