Creationism IS a crock, thank you kindly...
Christian Wagner
JoeSchem <joes...@aol.com> wrote:
>There is no record in the fossil strata of evolutionary progression.
You are either lying, ignorant, or trolling.
>There are no transitional forms and all forms demonstrate stability over
>the eons.
You are either lying, ignorant, or trolling.
> Obviously, macroscopic fossils such as the brontosaurus were
>not buried in the gentle sedimentation of uniformitarian geologic theory.
>So there is no evidence even of a great passage of time.
You are either lying, ignorant, or trolling.
>Creationism should not be taught in public schools because there should be
>no public schools. Public education is propagandistic tyranny by the
>government. Better the government shuts down the Internet than it
>monopolizes America's children for six hours a day in what is laughably
>called 'education.' Are you against government control of the Internet?
>Then don't support government control of millions of children's minds!
Please take debates about private versus public schools out of talk.origins.
Since you have nothing to contribute to talk.origins (except lies,
ignorance, or trolls), followups have been set accordingly.
--
And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
Your God has gone, and from now on, |
You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwa...@io.com
JoeSchem
not buried in the gentle sedimentation of uniformitarian geologic theory.
So there is no evidence even of a great passage of time.
Creationism should not be taught in public schools because there should be
no public schools. Public education is propagandistic tyranny by the
government. Better the government shuts down the Internet than it
monopolizes America's children for six hours a day in what is laughably
called 'education.' Are you against government control of the Internet?
Then don't support government control of millions of children's minds!
Joe
-------------------
The Cydonia Files
http://home.navisoft.com/cydonia/cydonia.htm
Lloyd R. Parker
: There is no record in the fossil strata of evolutionary progression.
: the eons. Obviously, macroscopic fossils such as the brontosaurus were
: not buried in the gentle sedimentation of uniformitarian geologic theory.
: So there is no evidence even of a great passage of time.
: Creationism should not be taught in public schools because there should be
: no public schools. Public education is propagandistic tyranny by the
: government.
And who would know more about propaganda than a propagandist, eh?
: Better the government shuts down the Internet than it
: monopolizes America's children for six hours a day in what is laughably
: called 'education.' Are you against government control of the Internet?
: Then don't support government control of millions of children's minds!
Joe, we ARE the government. Governments operate things which are in the
public good; education clearly qualifies. But hey, there're lots of nice
countries where this is not the case. Africa, Middle East, you name it,
and as the saying goes, "Delta is ready when you are." Bon voyage.
Matthew P Wiener
>>Did you have any particular important scientific questions in mind?
> (*)
>*As a matter of fact:
> The Test
>1. (Circular Argument) If only the fittest of the species survive,
>those that survive are the fittest. Provide proof or contradictory
>evidence. (The student who can correctly answer this question is
>wasting his time on Usenet and automatically passes the test.)
But why should only the fittest survive? Before evolution, it was
widely believed in scientific circles that all species survived, as
part of God's promise to Noah.
You are, in essense, conceding that evolution is correct, you realize?
That you even *think* the above is a circular argument, instead of a
heuristic description of the key secular principles that govern life
on earth, means as much.
>2. The theory of evolution suggests that the potential for variation
>within species eventually allows one life form to gradually evolve
>into another, entirely different species, a process known as
>macroevolution. According to the current scientifically accepted
>theory of evolution, this is what happens. List one example of
>macroevolution that has been demonstrated and confirmed.
>(Bacteriological examples accepted.)
See the t.o FAQ on observed speciations for examples.
>3. Charles Darwin conjectured that if evolution progressed slowly
>across the ages, as he had suggested, we should expect to find
>evidence of transitional lifeforms in the fossil record. The fact
>that no such fossils were discovered in Darwin’s time was, in his
>words, "the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory."
>He was confident that further discoveries would validate his ideas.
>Over one hundred years later, about 200 million fossils have been
>found and classified into about a quarter of a million species.
>List one incontrovertible example of a transitional form.
>(If you believe the answer is Punctuated Equilibria subtract one point.)
See the t.o FAQ on transitional speciations for examples.
At this rate, I flush the rest. You're too willfully ignorant to bother
with in more detail. Self-made stupidity is the stupidest kind.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Matthew P Wiener
>Wrong, it's called speciation (macroevolution is the large scale
>patterns, trends, and rates of change among groups of species).
>Speciation has never been directly observed;
Speciation *has* been directly observed. See the t.o FAQ for examples.
Dan K.
> Gordon Fitch <g...@panix.com> wrote: | >| >I don't know of a single physical law which calls for
| >| >something to be produced from nothing, although I wouldn't
> | >| >put it past good ol' QM.
> l...@ihgp3.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.): | >| If you're worried about mass-energy, why sure it's
| >| conserved - is now and always was. ( Well, this is the
> | >| "north pole" answer, but there you are. )
gcf:
> | >The Big Bang theory has shrunk a lot since I started | >discussing it. But we went over this already. Science
| >says only that the universe was once small and hot, but
> | >not where it came from before that.
> l...@ihgp3.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.): | There's a real conceptual tangle here that needs clearing
| up. It's really part of the "if the universe is finite, what's
| beyond it" problem, because the universe is a space-time
| continuum, not a space continuum with a time history. You
| see? You're embedding space in Newtonian time and asking
| what happened before its beginning. Properly :-) you can only
| follow time-like lines in the continuum itself. If these
| terminate at singularities that's tough darts. That's what
> | the north pole analogy is trying to get at.
> Well, we've been talking about the subject using our good old Indo-European verb tenses and other time
indicators. That's what every description of the Big
Bang I've seen has done, as well -- and therefore all
of this uses a linear conception of time. Now, if
theorists want to say that the shape of spacetime is
different at that "end" of the universe, fine, but I'd
haven't seen much about it. Or they could say that things
_look_ different there because of our way of looking at
them. In either of these cases, the term "Big Bang" is
a terrible misnomer; there's no bang. No wonder I'm
> confused.
> l...@ihgp3.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.): | Conversely, even if you had a model of flat space-time, you
| could still ask, in the spirit of time out of time, how
> | long has it been here? what's beyond it? who made it?
> I suppose so. If space curves, one can ask what it
> curves _in_, but it's easy to get off that hook.
> l...@ihgp3.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.): | >| I like to say that science agrees with the bible as far as the first
> | >| three words. It's a start.
> gcf:
> | >Bereshith bara Elohim... And you just said science had no
> | >opinion about the beginning.
> l...@ihgp3.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.):
> | The first three words of the bible are "In the beginning ..."
> | You're quoting Torah.
> Maybe that's the Bible to me.
> l...@ihgp3.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.): | Science does, of course, say there was a beginning,
| ( i.e. all time-like world lines terminate at a
| singularity. ) That's all. If that's an opinion about
> | it, fine.
> It's not only an opinion, it's an imposition.
> So do all the scientists in the house agree that
> there's a singularity? --
> Note followups. --
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
What it all basically boils down to is:
1. The Universe is a product of the mind or
2. The mind is a product of the Universe
Since the Universe from the very beginning followed and continues
to follow Laws, a product of mind, does it not follow that
mind preceeded Universe and the Universe is therefore a
product of the mind?
Dan K.
Jeff Swanson
[Insane babbling removed]
You must be joking.
: Joe
: -------------------
: The Cydonia Files
: http://home.navisoft.com/cydonia/cydonia.htm
Alex Merz
Lloyd R. Parker <lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu> wrote:
>JoeSchem (joes...@aol.com) wrote:
>: There is no record in the fossil strata of evolutionary progression.
Black is white.
>: There are no transitional forms and all forms demonstrate stability over
>: the eons.
Truth is slavery.
>: Obviously, macroscopic fossils such as the brontosaurus were
>: not buried in the gentle sedimentation of uniformitarian geologic theory.
War is peace.
>: So there is no evidence even of a great passage of time.
Kardassian interrogater to Captain Picard: how many lights do you see?
-Alexey
Michael L. Siemon
+What it all basically boils down to is:
+1. The Universe is a product of the mind or
+2. The mind is a product of the Universe
+Since the Universe from the very beginning followed and continues
+to follow Laws, a product of mind, does it not follow that
+mind preceeded Universe and the Universe is therefore a
+product of the mind?
The above is incoherent garbage. Do you have a point? If
so, would you care to attempt to present it in a fashion
that is not merely your own mental self-abuse?
In particular, insofar as your screed has any sense what-
sover, you *appear* to be asserting that "following Laws"
makes the Universe a "product of the mind." That is, I
think, a preposterous thing to try to slip into discussion
without the slightest trace of justification.
Want to start over? Or should we just killfile you????
--
Michael L. Siemon (m...@panix.com)
"Hail R67, the Panda's thumb of the one carbon metabolism
clique.." -- Deaddog
Rick Banghart
> On 9 Mar 1996 01:16:41 GMT, (Courbet) wrote:
>
> >Christopher C. Wood at chr...@meaddata.com wrote ...
>
>
> >2. The theory of evolution suggests that the potential for variation
> >within species eventually allows one life form to gradually evolve
> >into another, entirely different species, a process known as
> >macroevolution. According to the current scientifically accepted
> >theory of evolution, this is what happens. List one example of
> >macroevolution that has been demonstrated and confirmed.
> >(Bacteriological examples accepted.)
I have seen a list in the t.o faq. I don't remember any examples.. perhaps
you would like to look for yourself.
> May I comment here on your presentation? This often gives the fundies
> fuel, the way you have stated it. The term species itself is a human
> definition and has nothing to do with the world. As the traditional
Not true. Monkeys and people can't have (fertile) babies together, so they
are not the same species. Siamese cats and Calico cats can have babies
together, so they are the same species. It goes the other way, too.
Lions and Housecats are different species, therefore they can't have babies.
I would sincerely love a correction if I am wrong, but this is what I was
taught in high school.
[rest deleted]
Rick Banghart
[Lots deleted, including -Mammel's insults.]
>
>
> What it all basically boils down to is:
> 1. The Universe is a product of the mind or
> 2. The mind is a product of the Universe
>
> Since the Universe from the very beginning followed and continues
> to follow Laws, a product of mind, does it not follow that
> mind preceeded Universe and the Universe is therefore a
> product of the mind?
>
> Dan K.
In a word: um..
Christopher C. Wood
|> In article <4htgi3$m...@wi.combase.com>, mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
|> > On 9 Mar 1996 01:16:41 GMT, (Courbet) wrote:
|> > >Christopher C. Wood at chr...@meaddata.com wrote ...
Note that someone excised all of my words, but left the attribution.
Pay more attention!
This is Courbet:
|> > >2. The theory of evolution suggests that the potential for variation
|> > >within species eventually allows one life form to gradually evolve
|> > >into another, entirely different species, a process known as
|> > >macroevolution. According to the current scientifically accepted
|> > >theory of evolution, this is what happens. List one example of
|> > >macroevolution that has been demonstrated and confirmed.
|> > >(Bacteriological examples accepted.)
|> I have seen a list in the t.o faq. I don't remember any examples.. perhaps
|> you would like to look for yourself.
Matt Giwer:
|> > May I comment here on your presentation? This often
|> > gives the fundies fuel, the way you have stated it. The term
|> > species itself is a human definition and has nothing to do with
|> > the world. As the traditional
banghar4:
|> Not true. Monkeys and people can't have (fertile) babies together,
|> so they are not the same species. Siamese cats and Calico cats can
|> have babies together, so they are the same species. It goes the
|> other way, too. Lions and Housecats are different species,
|> therefore they can't have babies.
|> I would sincerely love a correction if I am wrong, but this is what
|> I was taught in high school.
|> [rest deleted]
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@erinet.com
Rick Banghart
> There is no record in the fossil strata of evolutionary progression.
> There are no transitional forms and all forms demonstrate stability over
> the eons. Obviously, macroscopic fossils such as the brontosaurus were
> not buried in the gentle sedimentation of uniformitarian geologic theory.
> So there is no evidence even of a great passage of time.
Har Har Har Har Har...
> Creationism should not be taught in public schools because there should be
> no public schools. Public education is propagandistic tyranny by the
> government. Better the government shuts down the Internet than it
> monopolizes America's children for six hours a day in what is laughably
> called 'education.' Are you against government control of the Internet?
> Then don't support government control of millions of children's minds!
>
> Joe
I think our children should be taught by jack-booted UN thugs in Black
Helicopters.
Thank You.
Mark O'Leary
JoeSchem <joes...@aol.com> wrote:
>There is no record in the fossil strata of evolutionary progression.
Wrong. See the FAQ.
>There are no transitional forms and all forms demonstrate stability over
>the eons.
Wrong. See the FAQ.
>Obviously, macroscopic fossils such as the brontosaurus were
>not buried in the gentle sedimentation of uniformitarian geologic theory.
Why not? See the FAQ for conflicting evidence.
>So there is no evidence even of a great passage of time.
Wrong. See the FAQ.
>Creationism should not be taught in public schools
Agreed
>because there should be
>no public schools. Public education is propagandistic tyranny by the
>government. Better the government shuts down the Internet than it
>monopolizes America's children for six hours a day in what is laughably
>called 'education.'
Hey, we 've got a live one here!
Sorry, 'Bud' (I beleive thats the appropriate term?), but this ain't a good
old US of A newsgroup, the gov'ment don't own it and they can't shut it
down. It's global.
Ermm, and just how does the internet affect the US curriculum and how long
it is taught per day? Just interested.
>Are you against government control of the Internet?
>Then don't support government control of millions of children's minds!
... better the kids don't think at all rather than that they might think
something that disagrees with Joes prejudices. Save the internet: Kill all
American children! Fight for a world in which everyone agrees that the earth
was colonised by aliens who lived in pyramids just NE of a huge statue of
kermit the frog on Mars.
Idiot.
>Joe
M.
--
-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-. --- --- ... .-.-.- -=-=-=-=-
Mark O'Leary, Voice: Extn. 6201
Network & Communications Group. Email: mol...@dmu.ac.uk
De Montfort University, UK.
Hugh Young
wrote:
>What it all basically boils down to is:
>1. The Universe is a product of the mind or
>2. The mind is a product of the Universe
False dichtomy:
or
3. Mind and/or universe is/are product/s of something else or
4. Mind and/or universe is not a product.
>Since the Universe from the very beginning followed and continues
>to follow Laws, a product of mind
This confuses Laws1 = regularities in the behaviour of the universe
with Laws2 = our formulations of those regularities.
The universe "follows" Laws1, but it is Laws2 that are a product of
mind.
That's why they don't yet, and probably never will, match.
>, does it not follow that
>mind preceeded Universe and the Universe is therefore a
>product of the mind?
No, it doesn't. "Follows" does not mean "is caused by".
--
Hugh Young ____ _ ***************************
Pukerua Bay /____\ \ * Your overnight editor *
Nuclear-free \ \/ / / * Text clarified *
Aotearoa / New Zealand \/ /1/ * in the Antipodes *
/2/\/\ 1=blue * while you sleep: *
/ /\ \ \ 2=red * e-mail me for details *
/_/_/\_\_\ ***************************
Rick Banghart
> >|> Not true. Monkeys and people can't have (fertile) babies together,
> >|> so they are not the same species. Siamese cats and Calico cats can
> >|> have babies together, so they are the same species. It goes the
> >|> other way, too. Lions and Housecats are different species,
> >|> therefore they can't have babies.
>
> >|> I would sincerely love a correction if I am wrong, but this is what
> >|> I was taught in high school.
>
> Interesting evaluation. Since mules can't have babies with each other
> I guess a pair of mules must be seperate species.
Look, I know this isn't an exact definition...
But mules is a good example... horses and donkeys have mules, but mules are
not fertile. Therefore horses and donkeys are different species. I don't
know what species mules are.
I don't know the exact wording, but in general, what I gave is a useful
definition of species. Somebody back me up, or tell me I'm wrong, but please,
don't give me clever counterexamples.
thanks.
Mike Kohary
>
>>|> Not true. Monkeys and people can't have (fertile) babies together,
>>|> so they are not the same species. Siamese cats and Calico cats can
>>|> have babies together, so they are the same species. It goes the
>>|> other way, too. Lions and Housecats are different species,
>>|> therefore they can't have babies.
>
>>|> I would sincerely love a correction if I am wrong, but this is what
>>|> I was taught in high school.
>
>Interesting evaluation. Since mules can't have babies with each other
>I guess a pair of mules must be seperate species.
>
>
Mules are a hybrid species, and almost without exception, hybrid species
cannot mate. It is one of the exceptions to the above definition, which
otherwise works fairly well.
Remember, "species" is a human-coined term in order to categorize
something which we don't otherwise know how to describe. Nature knows
nothing of our categorization.
-MK
Mark O'Leary
>What it all basically boils down to is:
>1. The Universe is a product of the mind or
>2. The mind is a product of the Universe
>
>Since the Universe from the very beginning followed and continues
>to follow Laws, a product of mind, does it not follow that
>mind preceeded Universe and the Universe is therefore a
>product of the mind?
No, not at all. The laws are only a product of mind in that they are a tool
developed by an observing mind to allow explanation and prediction of
events. A 'law' as produced by a mind is a concise description, not a cause.
This description may correspond to a 'real' phenomenon to a greater or
lesser degree without changing what the phenomenon is (ie. Back when we
thought Newton had said all that needed to be aid about motion, relativistic
effectr were still happening, even though our minds had different laws).
Greg 'Bonz' Newman
wrote:
>In article <4i43pk$e...@news0.rain.rg.net>, ji...@ncn.com (Jim Davis) wrote:
>Mules are an interesting case. They are the offspring of a horse and a
>donkey. They are always sterile.
Not always. Once in a Blue Moon....:)
>Now a horse and a donkey are different
>species, aren't they? Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm not a zoologist.
>If they are different species, they are still so close to one another that
>they can interbreed, but their offspring cannot. With just a little more
>genetic drift, they might not be able to interbreed at all. Is this
>speciation in action?
Yup.
--
>> Greg 'Bonz' Newman
Would you care for a drink?
I think not, answered Descartes -- and vanished.
Herb Huston
risk.
In article <4hnakt$7...@ionews.ionet.net>, Courbet <> wrote:
}Inasmuch as I do not agree with teaching "creationism" in public
}schools (for the reasons so eloquently stated by Mr. Potts above),
}I do believe that the theory of evolution, if taught in schools,
}should be taught as theory, not indisputable fact, with the
}admission that there are many important questions left unanswered.
Yes, the theories of evolution, e.g. natural selection, should be taught as
theories, and the fact of evolution, i.e., changes in allele frequencies in
populations over time, should be taught as a fact.
Important questions remaining unanswered simply means guaranteed future
employment for evolutionary biologists, provided creationists don't march
us all forward into the 14th century.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
Ross Bagley
>
>>|> Not true. Monkeys and people can't have (fertile) babies together,
>>|> so they are not the same species. Siamese cats and Calico cats can
>>|> have babies together, so they are the same species. It goes the
>>|> other way, too. Lions and Housecats are different species,
>>|> therefore they can't have babies.
>
>>|> I would sincerely love a correction if I am wrong, but this is what
>>|> I was taught in high school.
>
>Interesting evaluation. Since mules can't have babies with each other
>I guess a pair of mules must be seperate species.
Er... Actually, by presenting mules as infertile animals, you
demonstrate that horses and donkeys are not of the same species,
according to his theory (which is probably a pretty good one).
It makes sense to me...
Ross Bagley
Actually, I do happen to speak for the owner of this computer...
Ashley Goad
>In article <4hrnsh$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, joes...@aol.com (JoeSchem) wrote:
>> There is no record in the fossil strata of evolutionary progression.
>> There are no transitional forms and all forms demonstrate stability over
>> the eons. Obviously, macroscopic fossils such as the brontosaurus were
>> not buried in the gentle sedimentation of uniformitarian geologic theory.
>> So there is no evidence even of a great passage of time.
>Har Har Har Har Har...
>> Creationism should not be taught in public schools because there should be
>> no public schools. Public education is propagandistic tyranny by the
>> government. Better the government shuts down the Internet than it
>> monopolizes America's children for six hours a day in what is laughably
>> called 'education.' Are you against government control of the Internet?
>> Then don't support government control of millions of children's minds]
>>
>> Joe
>I think our children should be taught by jack-booted UN thugs in Black
>Helicopters.
>Thank You.
I'm not surprised you didn't intellectually deny the
fact about the falsehood of evolution. Fuck the ACLU.
Herb Huston
risk.
In article <4h4rsf$g...@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
Magi <Chris G Petersen/DELCO @lnusde.delcoelect.com> wrote:
}Darwin's theory is the best idea we have about how the species came
}to be. It's valuable because it answers so many questions that would
}otherwise go unanswered. But it has it's flaws too. There are
}questions that remain unanswered, and questions that are answered
}incorrectly or at least unsatisfactorily.
Good. That means continuing future employment for evolutionary biologists,
provided the creationist dolts don't march all of us forward into the 14th
century.
} Questions regarding
}kindness and morality come to a stark disconnect when confronted
}with Darwin's explanations.
Not anymore. You might want to take a look at Robert Wright's _The Moral
Animal_, published in 1994 by Pantheon Press of New York; the ISBN is
0-679-40773-1.
} Religious experience does not fit well
}with evolution theory.
That would certainly have come as a surprise to the late Sir Alister Hardy,
the founding director of the Religious Experience Research Unit at Oxford
(there's also a unit at Princeton). You might want to check his book _The
Biology of God_.
}Neither the Bible nor the Origin of the Species provides
}complete answers to the questions we have.
However, the latter has better answers. And follow-up work over the last
136+ years has led to still better answers.
} Would it be
}OK if we let these Creationists continue to look for better
}answers?
When do you suppose they'll get started?
}Creationism will be difficult to prove without an observation of
}divine purpose. If that means it is not a theory, it can still be
}true. If unprovable, that does not mean it should not be presented
}in school (at least as one alternate explanation of creation)?
Ever read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Jerry Allan Putman
>> James Buell <bul...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The U.S. Constitution guarantees every child the right to recieve an
>>> education in an environment free of religous and/or political pressure.
>>Jerry Allan Putman <put...@cae.wisc.edu> then asked:
>> Oh, really? Can you cite the Article and Section numbers that
>> everyone can refer to?
> (Mahipal Singh Virdy) then answered:
>The Article is under the general title going by the idea of separation
>of Church and State.
Um, no place in the Constitution is the phrase "separation of Church
and State." That phrase actually comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson
wrote to a governor who was afraid of federal government involvement
in an obscure religious sect within his state. I think it was Maine,
but I cannot recall. I apologize, I hate to use unsure facts. Anyhow,
the phrase was taken out of context and used to re-interpret the First
Amendment -- I know I'm opening up another can of worms here -- to
which I believe you are referring to. In part, it reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, ..." etc.(press, peaceable assembly).
Literally interpreted, it means a (primarily government funded) public
school cannot promote a religion (e.g., be a Christian school). Also,
it cannot prohibit students' religious practices therein (2nd part of
1st Amendment) nor prohibit a religious debate (freedom of speech).
For more on this debate, refer to my response to the arguments/points
made by Mr. James Buell.
[ Aside: Wow, I guess this is my 15 minutes of fame on alt.paranet.
skeptic. And I sit here basking in the sun and all its
glory while mud is thrown my way ... SPLAT! ]
-- Jerry P, put...@cae.wisc.edu
Ken Johnson
> In article <4hnakt$7...@ionews.ionet.net>, Courbet <> wrote:
> }Inasmuch as I do not agree with teaching "creationism" in public
> }schools (for the reasons so eloquently stated by Mr. Potts above),
> }I do believe that the theory of evolution, if taught in schools,
> }should be taught as theory, not indisputable fact, with the
> }admission that there are many important questions left unanswered.
True, evolution is in the scientific meaning of the term a theory. This
creationist nonsense is, on the other hand, an unfalsifiable and literally
unexaminable hypothesis. I have of course no objection if someone wants to
hold this as a religious belief. Encouraging creationism to be taught in
science classrooms is nothing less than intellectual child molesting.
Ken Johnson
ima pseudonym
>bang...@pilot.msu.edu (Rick Banghart) wrote:
[snip]
>>I think our children should be taught by jack-booted UN thugs in Black
>>Helicopters.
>>Thank You.
> I'm not surprised you didn't intellectually deny the
>fact about the falsehood of evolution.
You misspelled "creationism"
> Fuck the ACLU.
Not tonight, sweetie, I've got a headache...
Gratuitous Pseudonym
ficti...@alias.incognito.myob (ima pseudonym) wrote:
>
>>bang...@pilot.msu.edu (Rick Banghart) wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Not tonight, sweetie, I've got a headache...
It sounds like a pretty tall order, anyway. How many members of the ACLU are
there?
BTW, are we related? I note that we have the same last name...
James Burns
Ashley Goad (cna0...@wvnvm.wvnet.edu) wrote:
: bang...@pilot.msu.edu (Rick Banghart) wrote:
[ snippage. What follows is sarcasm. ]
: >I think our children should be taught by jack-booted UN thugs in Black
: >Helicopters.
: >Thank You.
: I'm not surprised you didn't intellectually deny the
: fact about the falsehood of evolution. Fuck the ACLU.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for clearing that up. There still might have been someone somewhere
reading this thread who thought, upon reading so much about Creationists'
rights, that they weren't actually intent upon imposing their peculiar
beliefs on everyone else's children.
Jim Burns <jbu...@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Mike Wright
[...]
> But mules is a good example... horses and donkeys have mules, but mules are
> not fertile. Therefore horses and donkeys are different species. I don't
> know what species mules are.
[...]
I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that mules should be referred to
as hybrids - a combination of two species. They are not a species
themselves. It might be useful to reword one's "formal" definition of
species to explicitly exclude infertile hybrids.
Mike Wright
David Iain Greig
[ snip ]
: >I think our children should be taught by jack-booted UN thugs in Black
: >Helicopters.
: >Thank You.
: I'm not surprised you didn't intellectually deny the
: fact about the falsehood of evolution. Fuck the ACLU.
^^^^
YM "Communications Decency Act". HTH. HAND.
--D.
Rick Banghart
O'Leary) wrote:
> In article <banghar4-120...@210cc-mac-5.cl.msu.edu>,
> Rick Banghart <bang...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Interesting evaluation. Since mules can't have babies with each other
> >> I guess a pair of mules must be seperate species.
> >
> >Look, I know this isn't an exact definition...
> >
> >But mules is a good example... horses and donkeys have mules, but mules are
> >not fertile. Therefore horses and donkeys are different species. I don't
> >know what species mules are.
>
> Ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring is one definition of
> species, but not the only one.
>
> For example, the are several species of Hawaian fruit flies that would still
> produce fertile offspring, but never mate because their mating _rituals_,
> i.e. signalling of receptivity etc, have changed. It is quite valid to say
> that these flies from different valleys represent different species, but
> would one say that, for instance, a human religious group that doesnt permit
> marriage to non-beleivers and doesnt permit conversion or adoption into the
> faith represents another species of human?
>
> As another example, also in the insect realm, different species may still be
> able to produce fertile offspring, but the structure of the genetalia has
> changed slightly between the groups, so the plumbing won't hook up, even
> though in some cases they still try!
>
> Also geography may define a species: we know that lions and tigers can
> interbreed (I'm not sure if the ligers are fertile), but since they never
> meet outside zoos, they remain distinct species rather than blending into a
> single one.
>
> However, in the normal course of events, the production of fertile offspring
> is the most useful yardstick for determining if 2 types are variants of the
> same species or entirely different species. 'Species' remains an artificial
> dsitinction that we use to classify rather than a 'fact of nature', and
> whilst it may hold true for 99% of 'species' we see, there are likely to be
> grey areas...
>
> > I don't know the exact wording, but in general, what I gave is a useful
> >definition of species. Somebody back me up, or tell me I'm wrong, but
please,
> >don't give me clever counterexamples.
>
> I quite agree, yours is the most useful definition of a species, but note
> that counter examples do exist - this doesn't in any way reduce the utility
> of the definition.
Thank you.
> As an aside, how exactly would you ask someone to make their case if they
> disagree with you, if arent permitted counterexamples? Proof by assertion?
Boy, I am really bad at wording things... What I meant was, that if you are
telling me I'm wrong by giving counterexamples, then I say, yes, I know I'm
not exactly right, but for most cases, as you yourself said, mine is the most
useful definition. I am aware that it is not complete. I want to know whether
it is (a) not useful or (b) useful. A few counterexamples don't tell me either
one, they just tell me that it is (c) not complete, which I knew. Now, certain
counterexamples should prove me wrong, such as a bat and an elephant producing
fertile offspring, but saying that, for example, 2 male horses are of two
different species according to my definition, therefore my definition is wrong..
I mean, I'll concede that point, but I really don't care, since my intention
was not to provide a complete definition.
Does this make more sense? I'm sorry if I mix up my meanings, but my grammar
is almost always correct :)
thanks,
r.
Mark O'Leary
As an aside, how exactly would you ask someone to make their case if they
disagree with you, if arent permitted counterexamples? Proof by assertion?
>thanks.
Joe G Skep
Clearly
the theistic creationism of the mainline religions is in no way in
conflict
with the theory of evolution. In fact the mainline releigions have
opposed the teaching of creationism and creation science in all of the
major legal cases. Many observers state that this support has been
cruciual in declaring creationism a religion and not science.
The real issue is whether the bible is a textbook of geology and
paleontology, or a collection of myths, stories, wise sayings of one
particular culture. More specifically the problem involves "Young Earth"
creationism which demands the overthrow of Physics, Chemistry , and
Biology as now known in order to reduce the time since creation to
some 10,000 years. The creationists who believe that modern science is
a record of man sorting out Their God's universe have great problems
with the pseudoscientific nonsense required to cram the evidence of
the universe into 10,.000 years.
Of course their are intermediate forms, the local Ordovician strata
show transitional forms in the snail Cyclonema which tend to support
punctuated equilibrium.
Carl J Lydick
=JoeSchem wrote:
=>
=> [one frequently covered, and refuted, creationist argument deleted]
=>
=> Creationism should not be taught in public schools because there should be
=> no public schools. Public education is propagandistic tyranny by the
=> government. Better the government shuts down the Internet than it
=> monopolizes America's children for six hours a day in what is laughably
=> called 'education.' Are you against government control of the Internet?
=> Then don't support government control of millions of children's minds.
=
= The U.S. Constitution guarantees every child the right to recieve an
=education in an environment free of religous and/or political pressure.
Perhaps you could tell use exactly where the U.S. Constitution guarantees every
child the right to receive any education at all, let alone an education in an
environment free of religious and/or political pressure?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Carl J Lydick
=Well, we've been talking about the subject using our
=good old Indo-European verb tenses and other time
=indicators. That's what every description of the Big
=Bang I've seen has done, as well -- and therefore all
=of this uses a linear conception of time. Now, if
=theorists want to say that the shape of spacetime is
=different at that "end" of the universe, fine, but I'd
=haven't seen much about it.
I.e., Gordon *STILL* claims he can talk sensibly about particular scientific
theories without understanding the language in which they're expressed, and
that rough translations give him a more profound understanding of the subject
than that of folks who speak the language.
=Or they could say that things
=_look_ different there because of our way of looking at
=them. In either of these cases, the term "Big Bang" is
=a terrible misnomer; there's no bang. No wonder I'm
=confused.
No, Gordon, you're confused because you're too damned stupid and/or lazy to
actually learn anything about the topics about which you insist on
bullshitting.
Matthew P Wiener
>In article <4hs2jq$f...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>=Well, we've been talking about the subject using our good old
>=Indo-European verb tenses and other time indicators. That's what
>=every description of the Big Bang I've seen has done, as well -- and
>=therefore all of this uses a linear conception of time. Now, if
>=theorists want to say that the shape of spacetime is different at
>=that "end" of the universe, fine, but I'd haven't seen much about
>=it.
>I.e., Gordon *STILL* claims he can talk sensibly about particular scientific
>theories without understanding the language in which they're expressed, and
>that rough translations give him a more profound understanding of the subject
>than that of folks who speak the language.
More to the point, while Gordon has only seen Big Bang descriptions
that are stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the like, not all
of us have been so limited.
A few of us actually comprehend the mathematics, you see.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Gordon Fitch
| >=Well, we've been talking about the subject using our good old
| >=Indo-European verb tenses and other time indicators. That's what
| >=every description of the Big Bang I've seen has done, as well -- and
| >=therefore all of this uses a linear conception of time. Now, if
| >=theorists want to say that the shape of spacetime is different at
| >=that "end" of the universe, fine, but I'd haven't seen much about
| >=it.
carl@SOL1 (Carl J Lydick) writes:
| >I.e., Gordon *STILL* claims he can talk sensibly about particular scientific
| >theories without understanding the language in which they're expressed, and
| >that rough translations give him a more profound understanding of the subject
| >than that of folks who speak the language.
wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
| More to the point, while Gordon has only seen Big Bang descriptions
| that are stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the like, not all
| of us have been so limited.
|
| A few of us actually comprehend the mathematics, you see.
Are there "big bangs" in mathematics? This is new to me.
I had the idea that most mathematics eschewed such vague
chatter. Tell us more.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Matthew P Wiener
>wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
>| More to the point, while Gordon has only seen Big Bang descriptions
>| that are stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the like, not all
>| of us have been so limited.
>| A few of us actually comprehend the mathematics, you see.
>Are there "big bangs" in mathematics? This is new to me.
How ignorant can someone *be*? Big Bang theory *is* mathematical. You
did not _know_ that? You were unaware that the stuff you have read (you
know, the verbiage that is stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the
like) is just diluted mush for the retar^H^H^H^H^Heducated layman?
Sheesh.
Carl J Lydick
=g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
=| >=Well, we've been talking about the subject using our good old
=| >=Indo-European verb tenses and other time indicators. That's what
=| >=every description of the Big Bang I've seen has done, as well -- and
=| >=therefore all of this uses a linear conception of time. Now, if
=| >=theorists want to say that the shape of spacetime is different at
=| >=that "end" of the universe, fine, but I'd haven't seen much about
=| >=it.
=
=carl@SOL1 (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=| >I.e., Gordon *STILL* claims he can talk sensibly about particular scientific
=| >theories without understanding the language in which they're expressed, and
=| >that rough translations give him a more profound understanding of the subject
=| >than that of folks who speak the language.
=
=wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
=| More to the point, while Gordon has only seen Big Bang descriptions
=| that are stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the like, not all
=| of us have been so limited.
=|
=| A few of us actually comprehend the mathematics, you see.
=
=Are there "big bangs" in mathematics? This is new to me.
=I had the idea that most mathematics eschewed such vague
=chatter. Tell us more.
Gordon, why don't you go look up the term "singularity" sometime.
Gordon Fitch
| Gordon, why don't you go look up the term "singularity" sometime.
In the kind of lazy, stupid math I know about it's a point
where there's no derivative even though the function may
have derivatives everywhere else. If, for instance, you're
called upon to divide by zero, but division by zero is
undefined. The _American_Heritage_Dictionary_ also gives
"a black hole" as a meaning of _singularity_, which I think
is interesting because presumably a black hole has some
kind of physical or at least phenomenal existence, whereas
a mathematical singularity is an artifact of language
alone and need not correspond to anything physical (unless
language underlies the phenomenal world, etc. etc. etc.)
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gordon Fitch
| >| More to the point, while Gordon has only seen Big Bang descriptions
|
gcf@panix (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >Are there "big bangs" in mathematics? This is new to me.
wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
| How ignorant can someone *be*? Big Bang theory *is* mathematical. You
| did not _know_ that? You were unaware that the stuff you have read (you
| know, the verbiage that is stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the
| like) is just diluted mush for the retar^H^H^H^H^Heducated layman?
I realize it's diluted mash. Michael Siemon says I have to study hard
for three or four years to get the mathematics, which is a bit much
just to sit in sci.skeptic and make fun of people who believe in
astrology. But as diluted mash, it's not mathematics; so "Big Bang"
is not mathematical, it's a sort of transgression of mathematics. No?
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gordon Fitch
| +Michael Siemon says I have to study hard
| +for three or four years to get the mathematics...
| +just to sit in sci.skeptic and make fun of people who believe in
| +astrology.
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
| Well, anyone can sit and make fun of people who believe in
| astrology. All THAT takes is judgment; mathematics is simply
| icing on the cake [so is history, philosophy, psychology,
| etc.] -- but icing is *so* sweet! ...
That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that
mathematics and so on can be used as well as an instrument
of sour, narrow authoritarianism -- yet another way of
putting people down. We're fortunate that Ramanujan grew
up in India; in America, he'd have been quickly tracked
into driving a taxi. Look around you.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Michael L. Siemon
+Michael Siemon says I have to study hard
+for three or four years to get the mathematics...
+just to sit in sci.skeptic and make fun of people who believe in
+astrology.
Well, anyone can sit and make fun of people who believe in
astrology. All THAT takes is judgment; mathematics is simply
icing on the cake [so is history, philosophy, psychology,
etc.] -- but icing is *so* sweet! If astrologers were in
political league (and effectively so) to influence the affairs
of the Republic (as opposed to those of a former first lady),
the sweetness might set our teeth on edge, from the bitterness
of watching fraudulent success. Such is my reaction, at least,
to "Creationism." The fathers have eaten sour theories, and
their children...
For those who have, somehow, aquired judgment without paying
their dues, sitting and making fun of those without judgment
is easy (if perhaps less than ultimately rewarding, or even
very satisfying to one's conscience, or aesthetic sense.)
But the hard part is aquiring judgment. Short of a natural
or intuitive gift from God's grace (and those seem remarkably
short in supply, these days), one must get it where one can.
And that *does* mean hard work. And some annoyance, if you
have done the work, towards people who *appear* to want the
perquisites, and reputation of, judgment, without having the
thing itself.
Paying some more than nominal dues towards mathematical judge-
ment *does* allow of reading in the popular press and still
coming out with non-zero (and non-negative) sense of the way
the world is wagging, to the refinement (or overturning) of
our judgements. This is good (which I feel I should say for
those readers who find my prose impenetrable :-))
--
Michael Siemon "We must know the truth, and we must love
m...@panix.com the truth we know, and we must act
according to the measure of our love."
-- Thomas Merton
S. LaBonne
>That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that
>mathematics and so on can be used as well as an instrument
>of sour, narrow authoritarianism -- yet another way of
>putting people down.
So? Is there _any_ aspect of human culture that can't be misused in
this way?
--
Opinions are mine alone; I never met a university with opinions!
Steve LaBonne ********************* (labo...@cnsunix.albany.edu)
"It can never be satisfied, the mind, never." - Wallace Stevens
Greg 'Bonz' Newman
>Are there "big bangs" in mathematics? This is new to me.
>I had the idea that most mathematics eschewed such vague
>chatter. Tell us more.
Gordon, things like the BB, PunkEek, and Thermodynanics ARE math.
If you'd bother to read a paper, you'd see something like, "We
observe such and such, so we think <pages of math>.
Why do you think we keep referring you to the papers?
--
>> Greg 'Bonz' Newman
Would you care for a drink?
I think not, answered Descartes -- and vanished.
Carl J Lydick
=ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU:
=| Gordon, why don't you go look up the term "singularity" sometime.
=
=In the kind of lazy, stupid math I know about it's a point
=where there's no derivative even though the function may
=have derivatives everywhere else.
Your description of your mathematical knowledge is spot on, Gordon. Why are
you such an inveterate bullshiter?. Using your (invalid) definition, the
absolute value function has a singularity at zero. Now, why not remedy your
ignorance and look up the term singularity instead of inventing your own bogus
definitions when you encounter a word you don't understand?
=If, for instance, you're
=called upon to divide by zero, but division by zero is
=undefined. The _American_Heritage_Dictionary_ also gives
="a black hole" as a meaning of _singularity_, which I think
=is interesting
Only because you're utterly clueless.
=because presumably a black hole has some
=kind of physical or at least phenomenal existence, whereas
=a mathematical singularity is an artifact of language
=alone and need not correspond to anything physical (unless
=language underlies the phenomenal world, etc. etc. etc.)
Bullshit! You've just claimed that mathematics wasn't developed largely in
order to describe the real world, though I doubt you've got the intelligence to
realize it, nor the intellectual integrity to admit it if you miraculously DO
understnad it.
Carl J Lydick
=I realize it's diluted mash. Michael Siemon says I have to study hard
=for three or four years to get the mathematics,
What he said, Gordon, was that it would probably take one college math course a
term for four years to get the math (assuming that you're fit at this point to
enroll in a college freshman math course). You, clueless as always, decided
that that meant it would require the equivalent of four years of graduate level
work appropriate for a mathemetician.
=which is a bit much
=just to sit in sci.skeptic and make fun of people who believe in
=astrology. But as diluted mash, it's not mathematics; so "Big Bang"
=is not mathematical, it's a sort of transgression of mathematics. No?
No. The mathematics used to describe the big bang does, as best we can tell,
actually describe physics of the big bang. "Big bang" is the term given to the
singularity and the subsequent explosion which the physical evidence available
to us indicates was the beginning of the universe.
J. B. Stephen (Buck)
seen two mistakes made.
1) The idea that it not necessary to understand
mathematics to discuss the "big bang" is simply
ludicrous. The "big bang" theory is a mathematical
model, it does not exist as a theory without
mathematics, and cannot be fully understood without
knowing alot of higher mathematics. The popularized
explainations do not fully explain the theory.
The claim that one understands the "big bang" theory
because they have read a non-mathematical treatment
of the theory is vacuous. It would be similar to
the claim that I am an epidemiologist because I know
that anti-biotics kill germs.
2) The concept of "singularity" or "singular point".
These terms are very carefully defined in the
study of ordinary and partial differential equations.
See Ivar Stakgold, "Green's Functions and Boundary
Problems", Wiley-Interscience, 1979, for a discussion.
An understanding of the full import of the word
"singularity" requires, at a minimum, a firm grasp of
the calculus.
One note. The term singularity usually refers to
a characteristic of a *differential equation*, not
the solution to the differential equation.
It is of main concern when one attempts to solve
initial value problems or boundary value problems.
I have no desire to debate the "big bang theory", but I am
appalled by the level of the mathematical abilities of some of its
detractors.
Buck.
Joseph B. Stephen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Northern Illinois University
moggin
:For those who have, somehow, aquired judgment without paying
:their dues, sitting and making fun of those without judgment
:is easy (if perhaps less than ultimately rewarding, or even
:very satisfying to one's conscience, or aesthetic sense.)
:But the hard part is aquiring judgment. Short of a natural
:or intuitive gift from God's grace (and those seem remarkably
:short in supply, these days), one must get it where one can.
:And that *does* mean hard work. And some annoyance, if you
:have done the work, towards people who *appear* to want the
:perquisites, and reputation of, judgment, without having the
:thing itself.
How many dues does it take to buy an induldgence?
-- moggin
Matthew P Wiener
>That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that mathematics
>and so on can be used as well as an instrument of sour, narrow
>authoritarianism -- yet another way of putting people down.
Such a crybaby. Can't hack it, can you?
> We're
>fortunate that Ramanujan grew up in India; in America, he'd have been
>quickly tracked into driving a taxi. Look around you.
You're just gibbering like a retard. How come?
Matthew P Wiener
>wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
>| >| More to the point, while Gordon has only seen Big Bang descriptions
>| >| that are stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the like, not all
>| >| of us have been so limited.
>| >| A few of us actually comprehend the mathematics, you see.
>gcf@panix (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >Are there "big bangs" in mathematics? This is new to me.
>wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
>| How ignorant can someone *be*? Big Bang theory *is* mathematical. You
>| did not _know_ that? You were unaware that the stuff you have read (you
>| know, the verbiage that is stuck with Indo-European verb tenses and the
>| like) is just diluted mush for the retar^H^H^H^H^Heducated layman?
>I realize it's diluted mash.
And some of us study the UNDILUTED Real Thing.
Got it?
> Michael Siemon says I have to study hard
>for three or four years to get the mathematics, which is a bit much
>just to sit in sci.skeptic and make fun of people who believe in
>astrology. But as diluted mash, it's not mathematics; so "Big Bang"
>is not mathematical, it's a sort of transgression of mathematics. No?
The Real Big Bang is mathematical. Not the diluted mush you've read.
Like, DUH.
Gordon Fitch
| >That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that mathematics
| >and so on can be used as well as an instrument of sour, narrow
| >authoritarianism -- yet another way of putting people down.
wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
| Such a crybaby. Can't hack it, can you?
Why hack it? It's boring.
We're now apparently about to revisit, yet again,
the "singularity" issue, and the correspondence-
of-mathematics-to-the-physical-world issue. Well,
I'll spare you; three or four times is enough for
me. I must be getting old.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
ima pseudonym
>lyk...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>>Mules are not considered by science a species **because** they can not
>>reproduce with other mules.
>>
>In fact they are a sterile hybrid. We have many other examples in botany.
>Roses for instance. All modern roses are hybrids, some are sterile. None
>has suddenly sprung forth a new specie.
No. Many roses aren't hybrids, but no doubt some types are. A great many
plant species are of hybrid origin; hybridization followed by polyploidy is
one major mode of speciation in plants, and has been repeatedly demonstrated
in great detail. Some such cases of speciation by hybridization happened very
recently indeed [e.g., where ancestral species came together because of
modern human activity].
mark edward balcom
>
>Mules are not considered by science a species **because** they can not
>reproduce with other mules.
>
Carl J Lydick
=gcf@panix (Gordon Fitch) writes:
=| >That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that mathematics
=| >and so on can be used as well as an instrument of sour, narrow
=| >authoritarianism -- yet another way of putting people down.=| Such a crybaby. Can't hack it, can you?
=
=Why hack it? It's boring.
Whereas your uninformed bullshitting is exciting to you, eh? Thank you for
admitting as much.
Carl J Lydick
=m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon) wrote:
=
=:For those who have, somehow, aquired judgment without paying
=:their dues, sitting and making fun of those without judgment
=:is easy (if perhaps less than ultimately rewarding, or even
=:very satisfying to one's conscience, or aesthetic sense.)
=
=:But the hard part is aquiring judgment. Short of a natural
=:or intuitive gift from God's grace (and those seem remarkably
=:short in supply, these days), one must get it where one can.
=:And that *does* mean hard work. And some annoyance, if you
=:have done the work, towards people who *appear* to want the
=:perquisites, and reputation of, judgment, without having the
=:thing itself.
=
= How many dues does it take to buy an induldgence?
Sorry, nature doesn't grant indulgences, something that folks like you and
Gordon seem iincapable of grasping.
Gordon Fitch
| In discussions on this thread concerning the "big bang", I have
| seen two mistakes made.
| 1) The idea that it not necessary to understand
| mathematics to discuss the "big bang" is simply
| ludicrous. The "big bang" theory is a mathematical
| model, it does not exist as a theory without
| mathematics, and cannot be fully understood without
| knowing alot of higher mathematics. The popularized
| explainations do not fully explain the theory.
I think this has been well understood by almost everyone in
the discussion. However, my criticisms of the theory, or
rather, the theories, have been literary -- aesthetic and
philosophical -- rather than mathematical. You may believe
that one can't do this, but in that case you agree with one
of my earlier points, that if the theory is incomprehensible
without the mathematics, it shouldn't be popularized as a
high-energy explosion a la Genesis.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Matthew P Wiener
>bu...@shuksan.math.niu.edu (J. B. Stephen (Buck)):
>| In discussions on this thread concerning the "big bang", I have
>| seen two mistakes made.
>| 1) The idea that it not necessary to understand mathematics to
>| discuss the "big bang" is simply ludicrous. The "big bang"
>| theory is a mathematical model, it does not exist as a theory
>| without mathematics, and cannot be fully understood without
>| knowing alot of higher mathematics. The popularized
>| explainations do not fully explain the theory.
>I think this has been well understood by almost everyone in the
>discussion.
Except you. Why would you thrown in those idiotic comments about
Indo-European verb tenses? Why would you have zero comprehension
to a trivial remark that the mathematics doesn't use verb tenses?
> However, my criticisms of the theory, or rather, the
>theories, have been literary -- aesthetic and philosophical -- rather
>than mathematical.
And as such, have been worthless drivel.
> You may believe that one can't do this, but in
>that case you agree with one of my earlier points, that if the theory
>is incomprehensible without the mathematics,
Aspects of it can be described.
> it shouldn't be
>popularized as a high-energy explosion a la Genesis.
Nothing wrong with that, but when those who know the mathematics tell
you that you are gibbering, then you ought to shut up instead of babbling
further on. Deal?
moggin
>=m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
>=:For those who have, somehow, aquired judgment without paying
>=:their dues, sitting and making fun of those without judgment
>=:is easy (if perhaps less than ultimately rewarding, or even
>=:very satisfying to one's conscience, or aesthetic sense.)
>=:But the hard part is aquiring judgment. Short of a natural
>=:or intuitive gift from God's grace (and those seem remarkably
>=:short in supply, these days), one must get it where one can.
>=:And that *does* mean hard work. And some annoyance, if you
>=:have done the work, towards people who *appear* to want the
>=:perquisites, and reputation of, judgment, without having the
>=:thing itself.
moggin:
>= How many dues does it take to buy an induldgence?
Carl:
>Sorry, nature doesn't grant indulgences, something that folks like
>you and Gordon seem iincapable of grasping.
I don't think it does, either -- but I'm equally doubtful that
judgment is a product of the Protestant work-ethic. Michael's arguing
for salvation by works over salvation by faith. That's debatable (and
highly debated) theology.
-- moggin
Matthew P Wiener
>gcf@panix (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that mathematics
>wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
>| Such a crybaby. Can't hack it, can you?
>Why hack it? It's boring.
No, it's not boring. You're just too stupid to understand it.
>We're now apparently about to revisit, yet again, the "singularity"
>issue, and the correspondence- of-mathematics-to-the-physical-world
>issue. Well, I'll spare you; three or four times is enough for me.
>I must be getting old.
Ie, you're running away from having your dogbrain ignorance exposed.
No problem.
I'll say it again: your complaints about Indo-European tenses were
*STUPID*, OK? The Big Bang is properly described in the mathematics,
and whinging about this won't change it.
Like, duh.
S. LaBonne
Bob Casanova <c...@ops1.bwi.wec.com> wrote:
>>So? Is there _any_ aspect of human culture that can't be misused in
>>this way?
>
>Yes! Fly-fishing! (Huh? Oh. Sorry.)
Really? You've _never_ heard an accomplished fly-fisher use his skill
to make himself feel superior to novices and duffers? If so, I guess
fishing really is as good for the soul as they say it is. ;-)
Bob Casanova
>From: labo...@csc.albany.edu (S. LaBonne)
>Subject: Re: Creationism IS a crock, thank you kindly...
>Date: 21 Mar 1996 14:52:18 GMT
>In article <4iria2$o...@panix2.panix.com>, Gordon Fitch <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that
>>mathematics and so on can be used as well as an instrument
>>of sour, narrow authoritarianism -- yet another way of
>>putting people down.
>So? Is there _any_ aspect of human culture that can't be misused in
>this way?
Yes! Fly-fishing! (Huh? Oh. Sorry.)
>--
>Opinions are mine alone; I never met a university with opinions!
>Steve LaBonne ********************* (labo...@cnsunix.albany.edu)
>"It can never be satisfied, the mind, never." - Wallace Stevens
Bob C.
* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *
Gordon Fitch
| ...
| you that you are gibbering, then you ought to shut up instead of babbling
| further on.
Doubtless if _you_ don't understand something, it's
gibbering. Sometime, though, you might turn your
attention to the (non-mathematical) parallels between
creationism and the Big Bang theory as popularized.
They're both stories, and they're both pretty trashy.
| Deal?
Even _my_ devotion to duty is limited, and a deal
will probably be unnecessary to the happy end of getting
me out of this discussion.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Michael L. Siemon
+You may believe
+that one can't do this, but in that case you agree with one
+of my earlier points, that if the theory is incomprehensible
+without the mathematics, it shouldn't be popularized as a
+high-energy explosion a la Genesis.
Is it? I was unaware that any interpretation of Genesis
involved a "high engergy explosion" -- though of course
exegetical heresies lurk everywhere...
Also, be *very* clear that there is a difference between
honest popularization and journalistic "science reporting"
-- which on the whole makes political reporting look to
have a serious canon of honesty, careful investigation,
and scrupulous presentation.
Lee Rudolph
>I've generally seen the results of "Let there be light"
>taken to be explosive and grandiose, rather than subtle. A
>good illustration would be Haydn's setting in _The_Creation_.
There you go again, seeking after High Culture.
Me, I'm content with "Glow, little glow worm, glimmer, glimmer,"
muttered _sotto voce_ in the gloaming.
Lee Rudolph
Gordon Fitch
| +You may believe
| +that one can't do this, but in that case you agree with one
| +of my earlier points, that if the theory is incomprehensible
| +without the mathematics, it shouldn't be popularized as a
| +high-energy explosion a la Genesis.
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
| Is it? I was unaware that any interpretation of Genesis
| involved a "high engergy explosion" -- though of course
| exegetical heresies lurk everywhere...
I've generally seen the results of "Let there be light"
taken to be explosive and grandiose, rather than subtle. A
good illustration would be Haydn's setting in _The_Creation_.
Haydn was a man who knew how to deliver quality goods
without going too far outside the expectations of his
audience, and I don't think anyone was surprised when
the _fiat_lux_ came in like the Royal Austrian Brass
Band.
| Also, be *very* clear that there is a difference between
| honest popularization and journalistic "science reporting"
| -- which on the whole makes political reporting look to
| have a serious canon of honesty, careful investigation,
| and scrupulous presentation.
Then there arises what I think is a very cogent question:
why are not our brave warriors against pseudoscience not
concentrating their fire on this stuff, rather than a
bunch of poor, goofy creationists? My hypothetical
answer: they like easy targets.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Carl J Lydick
=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
=
=>=m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
=
=>=:For those who have, somehow, aquired judgment without paying
=>=:their dues, sitting and making fun of those without judgment
=>=:is easy (if perhaps less than ultimately rewarding, or even
=>=:very satisfying to one's conscience, or aesthetic sense.)
=
=>=:But the hard part is aquiring judgment. Short of a natural
=>=:or intuitive gift from God's grace (and those seem remarkably
=>=:short in supply, these days), one must get it where one can.
=>=:And that *does* mean hard work. And some annoyance, if you
=>=:have done the work, towards people who *appear* to want the
=>=:perquisites, and reputation of, judgment, without having the
=>=:thing itself.
=
=moggin:
=
=>= How many dues does it take to buy an induldgence?
=
=Carl:
=
=>Sorry, nature doesn't grant indulgences, something that folks like
=>you and Gordon seem iincapable of grasping.
=
= I don't think it does, either -- but I'm equally doubtful that
=judgment is a product of the Protestant work-ethic. Michael's arguing
=for salvation by works over salvation by faith. That's debatable (and
=highly debated) theology.
Michael's statement had absolutly nothing to do with theology nor the
Protestant work ethic. He merely pointed out that folks who've put in the
effort required to understand something are (justifiably) annoyed when morons
like Gordon who are obviously unwilling to put in the necessary effort pretend
to an understanding they don't possess.
Now, what is it about that that's too complex for you to understand?
Michael L. Siemon
+| Also, be *very* clear that there is a difference between
+| honest popularization and journalistic "science reporting"
+| -- which on the whole makes political reporting look to
+| have a serious canon of honesty, careful investigation,
+| and scrupulous presentation.
+
+Then there arises what I think is a very cogent question:
+why are not our brave warriors against pseudoscience not
+concentrating their fire on this stuff, rather than a
+bunch of poor, goofy creationists? My hypothetical
+answer: they like easy targets.
Gordon -- I expect better political judgement from you!
Fanatic advocates of _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ are not
invading school boards by stealth, and subborning state
legislatures (though you'll get some awfully bad "physics"
from the LaRouchites and Scientologists :-)).
And if you read any of the science groups, you will see
(and it reflects the state of normal scientific tension
with mangled or disastrous popularization) much more con-
cern with bad popularization than with massive ideological/
religious "challenges" to science on a more basic level.
Evolutionary biology is a special case -- but NOT because
of the science, or because it is either especially well
presented popularly, or specially poorly [it's about par
for the course.] The Creationists are "easy targets"
only for an audience that prefers thought to the kind
of emotional/rhetorical play of an Alan Keyes. Keyes is
an idiot, and so are the rest. But they are excruciatingly
dangerous idiots, unlike the usual run of same. They are
the Generals Jack D. Ripper of our contemporary cinematic
existence.
Most people of a basic scientific education and culture,
or even a more general well-educated culture, are quite
dismissive of Creationism, just because it does seem to
be such a trvially easy target. Then the political steam-
roller hits.
On a less heavy note, I observe rather quizzically your
fascination with an attempted rhetorical/aesthetic analysis
of "scientific theory" to be performed NOT on the theories,
but on the popularizations or journalistic reports thereof.
These texts do, indeed, cry out for such analysis -- and
you could discover endless ironic joys in a collage of
such analyses of, e.g. modern physics. Did I mention
Frijtof Capra? :-) Not the least joy in this would be to
show the nearly total disjunction of thought in any one
such treatment and any other (except where the one steals
blatantly from the other, of course :-)).
But no, I live a joyless life, and must refuse such pleasure.
Since popularizations bear a minimal (at best!) relation to
the theories they pretend to tell us about, it is rather
like taking a Muzak cover of a rap version of a Beatles
cover of a music hall song -- as if it were Champagne
Charlie at his most characteristic. Or a study of the
(no doubt fascinating) history of the 30s(?) pop-song
"Full Moon and Empty Arms" as a rehtorical/aesthetic
analysis of the classical piano concerto. Say, what????
Scientists (and even mathematicians, if we don't get TOO
badly burned, too early in life) *like* to give *some*
kinds of hints in hopefully suggestive "ordinary" terms,
to people who ask what interests them, or what they are
"working" on. To a degree, and to a sympathetic audience,
a certain excruciatingly-vague notion of some concepts
and some results may be communicated thus. One or two
examples have done astoundingly good jobs of this -- I
keep mentioning Feynman's _QED_; some of the books on
Special Relativity (one at least of Einstein's) also do
pretty well -- at least if one read's these as those who
know the real theory tend to think one "must" read them.
This is, I know, naive to the down derry derry down dans
-- but it *is* what most scientists mean by a good popu-
larization: that in a reading of the English (or German
or French, or Japanese...) that seems obvious to that
scientist as "the only" way to understand the text, that
text is not TERRIBLY misleading, though of course it is
mostly flat and probably nearly vacuuous in comparision
to what it is trying to convey. Authorial intent is
*very* much alive in the minds of scientific readers of
scientific popularization. Sorry if it's out of fashion.
Many important theoretical concepts *do* have roots of
a kind in ordinary speech. One can always start there
and attempt to suggest how things move away from the
vagueness (or misdirections) of the original usage.
(Good cases in point here: "force" and "energy" in
physics, "space" -- or as a technical term, "atlas"
in geometry). But at some point you have to drop the
ordinary language "training wheels" or you never get
the bicycle moving right.
In the actual development of theory, ordinary language
has two functions: one is the same function dreams or
other irrational human experience can have -- jiggling
the theoretical imagination; the other is discussion of
what we are doing as we are doing it. But that last is
a "reflection" on the practice of theorizing: it is a
strategic or tactical talking to ourselves about the
theory, with the theory being ostensible in our hands
waving at the blackboard, or our scribbles of estimates
or proof-sketches on envelopes. As a psychological
*armature* for theory, this is very important (at least
to most of us who aren't really all that good at doing
theory :-)) But it *isn't* theory; it is "motivation"
-- it is "getting us revved up" to do theory, and with
our noses pointed in (what he hope, or persuade our-
sevles, is) the right direction.
THERE is where the rhetorical structure of theory lies.
And the tactical and strategic choices in this are a
part of the aesthetics (e.g. does "symmetry" rule? and
how clever are we to be in interpreting that rule?)
In principle, SOME at least of the major mathematical
or physical theories *could* be conveyed in ordinary
language -- in that math may be seen, in one aspect,
as "just" a convenient and easily manipulable way to
keep account of matters that could be said without it.
This is *not* always the case -- much theory is essent-
ially "technical" in ways that are simply meaningless
WITHOUT the formalization that is being developed.
But what is frustrating as hell to those who know the
theory, and would like to talk freely and easily about
it, as far as that can be done without real hard work,
is to see sketchy efforts that we KNOW are not going
to get the exact point across, being "played" with by
an audience, as if THEIR peculiar preferences about the
words somehow change the theory WE are trying to give
some sketch of in ordinary language. That is the kind
of thing which elicits such *rage* as you seem to get
from some respondents -- and it can get them into an
incoherent sputter. If that is your object, it is (IMO)
a rather nasty game, and one that informs no one about
science.
Yes, much of relativity (even GR) could, in principle,
be "explained" (even correctly and fully) without the
mathematical apparatus in which it really *is* done --
but to do this would take MORE effort and MORE work,
and be prone to MORE error and miscomprehension than
to do the stuff the *way* it really is done -- namely,
in mathematical form.
I advised you that a few years of math and physics (at
an undergraduate level) would give you the background
to understand, as a layman, what goes on in cosmology.
You seem to regard that as a burden.
OK. I have a bargain for you. If you *don't* want to
learn the math (i.e., learn how professionals do this
stuff), you can get a fairly good approximation to the
same level of comprehension (assuming you have a really
good memory, and do not easily lose things that you
learned well a few years ago) in **ONLY** 15 years of
work, at about 5-6 hours a day, using ordinary English
and no math.
It really is *much* easier to take standard math and
physics classes for about 4 hours, every other day, for
some four years to get to the same goal. For one thing,
you'll find lots of teachers who can shove that stuff
at you -- but very few to do the other.
Rhetorical analysis of popularizations. Yeah; that
tells us a LOT about theory.
Bob Cormack
>
>bu...@shuksan.math.niu.edu (J. B. Stephen (Buck)):
>| In discussions on this thread concerning the "big bang", I have
>| seen two mistakes made.
>| 1) The idea that it not necessary to understand
>| mathematics to discuss the "big bang" is simply
>| ludicrous. The "big bang" theory is a mathematical
>| model, it does not exist as a theory without
>| mathematics, and cannot be fully understood without
>| knowing alot of higher mathematics.
Partly, mathematics is a discriptive language that is ideally suited for
describing logical relationships. These relationships can also be
successfully described in any other language, although not often as
concisely or clearly. Any mathematical theory of physics can be stated
as a set of these logical declarations, in mathematical or other language,
so in this sense, any theory can be discussed non-mathematically.
Another part of mathematics is a corpus of techniques and algorithms for
manipulating declarative mathematical statements to generate other
declarative statements. This part of mathematics does not translate well
for the non-mathematically trained. So in a discussion of, say, the
Big Bang theory, a mathematically untrained person would have to take
the theory's predictions and consequences on faith, being unable to
follow or reproduce the needed derivations.
This would not affect a person's ability to understand what the theory
is and what it predicts, however. Since few (if any) discussions in
these newsgroups hinge on mathematical derivations, such a person can
conceivably contribute to the discussion.
A requirement that anyone understand all the subtlies of a subject
before discussing it would result in a great silence.
Bob Cormack
P.S. The claim that a mathematical declarative statement cannot be
translated into ordinary language is (in my experience) always due to
a lack of understanding of what the statement means (the connection
between the logical statement and the world is unclear). If a brute
force translation is done anyway, the lack of understanding becomes
glaringly obvious -- this probably explains the reluctance to do this.
Michael L. Siemon
+= I don't think it does, either -- but I'm equally doubtful that
+=judgment is a product of the Protestant work-ethic. Michael's arguing
+=for salvation by works over salvation by faith. That's debatable (and
+=highly debated) theology.
I seem to have missed this one -- catching it now on the rebound.
"Paying dues" is work ethic (or perhaps monastic or friarly vocation).
It is not, in itself, a source of judgment. I specifically noted
what I take to be the obvious source (God's grace), but lamented an
apparent short supply. There are, to be sure, graceless and judge-
ment impaired slaveys, and no guarantee that one *will* acquire any
judgement by working for it. However, those with meagre gifts may,
indeed, get the most out of them by working hard. It may be open
to moral question whether one *should* "get the most out of" God's
gifts, but I will leave that argument to someone else more qualified
than I, who have always been as lazy as possible (hence, my penchant
for mathematics.)
What "paying dues" may accomplish is a willingness of other dues-
payers to see you as part of the union. There are classical bad
versions of this, some of which Christianity attempts to finesse
by the notion of "justification." Here, there truly would be a
descent into theology or preaching, and I would just as soon not
be a martyr if I can avoid it.
Gordon Fitch
| ...
| This would not affect a person's ability to understand what the theory
| is and what it predicts, however. Since few (if any) discussions in
| these newsgroups hinge on mathematical derivations, such a person can
| conceivably contribute to the discussion.
That depends on the purpose of the discussion for its
various pariticipants. It's obvious that a good many of
the participants in the current Big Bang discussions are
mainly interested in one-upmanship, probably as a way of
replaying situations in their lives where they were on
the other end of the stick, but now can come out ahead.
You have to learn that "idiot" is a proper way to respond
to something you disagree with somewhere. For such people
the whole value of mathematics is that it can be an
arcanum of which only they possess the key. It's the
flip side of bland, misleading popularization.
But to each his own. I don't mind a little light
intellectual s&m (as you can see), but the heavy,
repetitious stuff puts me off.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gordon Fitch
| +Then there arises what I think is a very cogent question:
| +why are not our brave warriors against pseudoscience not
| +concentrating their fire on this stuff, rather than a
| +bunch of poor, goofy creationists? My hypothetical
| +answer: they like easy targets.
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
| Gordon -- I expect better political judgement from you!
| Fanatic advocates of _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ are not
| invading school boards by stealth, and subborning state
| legislatures (though you'll get some awfully bad "physics"
| from the LaRouchites and Scientologists :-)).
| ...
I can't see how posting authoritarian, abusive diatribes
defends us from creationism and the like. In fact, if it
has any effect, I would think it would intensify the
problem by reflecting and resonating it.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Carl J Lydick
=g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
=| +Michael Siemon says I have to study hard
=| +for three or four years to get the mathematics...
=| +just to sit in sci.skeptic and make fun of people who believe in
=| +astrology.=| Well, anyone can sit and make fun of people who believe in
=| astrology. All THAT takes is judgment; mathematics is simply
=| icing on the cake [so is history, philosophy, psychology,
=| etc.] -- but icing is *so* sweet! ...
=
=That depends. If you look around you, you'll see that
=mathematics and so on can be used as well as an instrument
=of sour, narrow authoritarianism
Care to describe just how that's the case? Or are you just whining because
folks keep pointing out to you that your grasp of things mathematical based on
non-mathematical popularizations is pathetic?
Stephen F. Schaffner
>I think this has been well understood by almost everyone in
>the discussion. However, my criticisms of the theory, or
>rather, the theories, have been literary -- aesthetic and
>philosophical -- rather than mathematical. You may believe
>that one can't do this, but in that case you agree with one
>of my earlier points, that if the theory is incomprehensible
>without the mathematics, it shouldn't be popularized as a
>high-energy explosion a la Genesis.
Perhaps things have changed recently, but back when I used to do
literary criticism, it was customary to have some text in view when
engaging in criticism (as opposed to engaging in literary theory, for
which no contact with anything was required). I see no reason to
think that one can't do literary criticism of scientific theories, or
at least of the texts that present those theories (although the
attempts at doing so that I've run across have been banal in the
extreme). What I don't see, however, in this post or in any of the
dozens of earlier ones from you that I've read, is what texts you're
criticizing. You obviously aren't criticizing the mathematical
presentation of (say) the Big Bang, and you've previously denied using
any of the serious attempts at Big Bang popularization that a couple
of us mentioned. Just what *are* you criticizing?
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine,|| The history of science is rather
and may not be those of SLAC, Stanford|| putrid. . .
University, or the DOE. || Hilary Putnam
Stephen F. Schaffner
>g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>Then there arises what I think is a very cogent question:
>why are not our brave warriors against pseudoscience not
>concentrating their fire on this stuff [= bad science journalism (sfs)],
>rather than a
>bunch of poor, goofy creationists? My hypothetical
>answer: they like easy targets.
You've asked this cogent question before, and you received several
cogent answers (well, I thought my answer was at least as cogent as
the question, but I'm apt to be biased that way). As I recall, you
didn't respond in any way to the answers. Were they insufficiently
ironic to be worthy of consideration? The obvious answer, which has
been given in greater detail before, is that creationism is an
organized and effective political movement; bad science journalism
isn't. There are other answers as well, however. First, "creation
science" is bad science; bad science journalism is bad journalism.
Given your formulation of the question, why *should* warriors against
pseudoscience be concentrating their fire on something that isn't
pseudoscience to being with? Shouldn't that be the task of critics of
journalism, or (perish the thought) literary critics? Second,
scientists generally do, in fact, concentrate much of their fire on
bad science reporting. They complain constantly about it, and many of
them attempt to write good popularizations as an antidote. Some
scientific organizations provide training and internships specifically
for the purpose of improving science journalism. What makes you
dismiss these efforts? It is far from clear to me that more effort is
being spent on battling creationism, since remarkably few resources
are directed that way. Of course, on talk.origins you are likely to
find more criticism of creation science than of bad popularizations
of the Big Bang, but that's scarcely surprising.
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
Opinions expressed may be mine, and || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
may not be those of SLAC, || of probable lack of insight into the
Stanford University, or the DOE. || topic. Josiah Royce
Carl J Lydick
=bu...@shuksan.math.niu.edu (J. B. Stephen (Buck)):
=| In discussions on this thread concerning the "big bang", I have
=| seen two mistakes made.
=| 1) The idea that it not necessary to understand
=| mathematics to discuss the "big bang" is simply
=| ludicrous. The "big bang" theory is a mathematical
=| model, it does not exist as a theory without
=| mathematics, and cannot be fully understood without
=| knowing alot of higher mathematics. The popularized
=| explainations do not fully explain the theory.
=| ...
=
=I think this has been well understood by almost everyone in
=the discussion. However, my criticisms of the theory, or
=rather, the theories, have been literary -- aesthetic and
=philosophical -- rather than mathematical.
Thank you for admitting that, contrary to your earlier claims, you have
absolutely nothing substantive to say on the topic of the Big Bang.
Gordon Fitch
| ... You obviously aren't criticizing the mathematical
| presentation of (say) the Big Bang, and you've previously denied using
| any of the serious attempts at Big Bang popularization that a couple
This question came up before, and unfortunately I don't have
any of the material at hand. I don't have much room for books,
videotapes, and so forth, especially of stuff I don't like.
Maybe it's all been whipped from the universe while I was
looking the other way.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gordon Fitch
| Thank you for admitting that, contrary to your earlier claims, you have
| absolutely nothing substantive to say on the topic of the Big Bang.
Could you identify or quote those "earlier claims", so that
I can categorically and specifically disabuse you (and
anyone else listening) of the notion that I ever have
anything substantive to say about anything? If you want
substantive, you should get off the Net and read something
by an Authorized Author -- something with physical, mental,
and moral _heft_. Think of the tons of books in the
library, full of partial differentials, that you're
missing by wasting your time on my stuff.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gerald W. Krumenacker, Jr.
religion, has failed to be science. Does that mean that God doesn't exist
or that Creationism (the view that God is the first principle of life) is
wrong? I don't think so.
Religion and science are both ways of understanding reality, that is, they
are both languages and stories. They are, or should be, about different
tasks. Neither disproves the other. Neither is true; both are true. Or
better, there is no one way of thinking and talking about reality.
To my mind, religion is interested in symbol, meaning, depth, and relationship.
Science is only interested in the surface, "facts," and can't answer
"Why?" Religion explores, while science explains. Religion is
intentionally rich and open-ended, leading to insights and speculation,
while science is intentionally dry, leading to conclusions. Religion is
superior also because it can be acted out in prayer and ritual. Science
is only for elite experts, a form of clericalism.
Living in a post-modern society, everything is deconstructed to the point
that we live without depth anymore. I think it's high time for a
renaissance of art, literature, music, and religion. Science is a tool in
society, but it is a pretty (and intentionally) dry way of looking at
life.
Creationism is NOT a crock. Sure, it's not "true" from a scientific point
of view, but then again it isn't science and shouldn't attempt to be so in
our era.
Matt Giwer
>All of these posted arguments prove nothing except that Creationism, or
>religion, has failed to be science.
But the liars claim it is a science.
Does that mean that God doesn't exist
>or that Creationism (the view that God is the first principle of life) is
>wrong? I don't think so.
It means is no evidence for any god or for creation and there never
was.
>Religion and science are both ways of understanding reality, that is, they
>are both languages and stories. They are, or should be, about different
>tasks. Neither disproves the other. Neither is true; both are true. Or
>better, there is no one way of thinking and talking about reality.
The difference is that religion has never understood one damn thing
about reality. It is all magic and primitive superstition.
>To my mind, religion is interested in symbol, meaning, depth, and relationship.
>Science is only interested in the surface, "facts," and can't answer
>"Why?" Religion explores, while science explains. Religion is
>intentionally rich and open-ended, leading to insights and speculation,
>while science is intentionally dry, leading to conclusions. Religion is
>superior also because it can be acted out in prayer and ritual. Science
>is only for elite experts, a form of clericalism.
Religion only appeals to those who can not reason.
>Living in a post-modern society, everything is deconstructed to the point
>that we live without depth anymore. I think it's high time for a
>renaissance of art, literature, music, and religion. Science is a tool in
>society, but it is a pretty (and intentionally) dry way of looking at
>life.
And religion is a damnable way of looking at anything.
>Creationism is NOT a crock. Sure, it's not "true" from a scientific point
>of view, but then again it isn't science and shouldn't attempt to be so in
>our era.
Then tell them to go back under the rock of ages they crawled out from
under.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
One finger is all a real American needs to deal with the government.
It takes a village idiot and other truths children have already learned.
Good luck, Mr. Gorski
Dan M.
> Religion only appeals to those who can not reason.
Really Mr. Giwer?
Have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? It is the seminal work on
the potential and the limits of reason. In its framework, quantum
mechanics is understandable.
Kant was religious. He also showed, in the Critique of Practical Reason,
the difficulty with ethics without an appeal to the trancendental. (This
doesn't need to be God, Truth and Good can are also transcendental
principles. I do not insult you when I say that Kant's writings shows a
better ability to use reason than do yours. (Heck, I know they show
better reasoning ability than my own meager efforts.)
Dan M.
Brian K. Yoder
>All of these posted arguments prove nothing except that Creationism, or
>or that Creationism (the view that God is the first principle of life) is
>wrong? I don't think so.
Translation: I don't have to be rational if being rational doesn't give me
the answers I want to get. If I want some other answer I can use any
ridiculous method of thinking I want and nobody can tell me I shouldn't.
>Religion and science are both ways of understanding reality, that is, they
>are both languages and stories. They are, or should be, about different
>tasks. Neither disproves the other. Neither is true; both are true. Or
>better, there is no one way of thinking and talking about reality.
With premises like that it is no wonder you would believe in ridiculous
nonsense and defend contradictory claims. If there's no correct method of
thinking and no right or wrong answers to any question then on what grounds do
you think you have any business entering into any discussion of anything on any
grounds with anyone? You can never be right by your standards and you can never
claim your opponents are wrong. If you had any integrity you would follow
the examples of Cratylus and Wittgenstein (at least back when he had some
integrity) and stop talking entirely since by your own admission you
have nothing to say of any value.
>To my mind, religion is interested in symbol, meaning, depth, and relationship.
Any by your standards what it is "to your mind" is all that matters isn't it?
If I said "To my mind 2+2=7." would I be right? If so then who cares what you
Say? If you are wrong then what matters is not what is true "to your mind"
but what is true in reality, and that is what science studies. If you don't
care about what's true in reality then why bother talking about anything at all?
>Science is only interested in the surface, "facts," and can't answer
>"Why?"
It can't? Why not? In a certain sense you are right that there are some
fundamental questions that science per se doesn't address, but that's the
realm of philosophy, not of religion. Some philosophies are religious, but
certainly not all are, and none of the ones consistent with science are.
>Religion explores, while science explains. Religion is
>intentionally rich and open-ended, leading to insights and speculation,
>while science is intentionally dry, leading to conclusions.
Translation: Science gives you answers which is why religion is so great.
It merely leads to contradictions and unanswerable paradoxes. What makes you
think that contradictions, open-ended speculations (ie. unfounded pointless
guessing), and lack of answers is somehow a virtue? The fact that it doesn't
explain anything is one of the biggest reasons to disregard religion.
>Religion is
>superior also because it can be acted out in prayer and ritual. Science
>is only for elite experts, a form of clericalism.
What nonsense! Science can be carried out by anyone, and you don't need
to imagine intervention of supernatural powers in order to do it either. Of
course these days our schools do such a poor job at teaching science that
only the smartest people know much about science, but then again not many
people know much about theology either.
>Living in a post-modern society, everything is deconstructed to the point
>that we live without depth anymore. I think it's high time for a
>renaissance of art, literature, music, and religion. Science is a tool in
>society, but it is a pretty (and intentionally) dry way of looking at
>life.
What does religion have to do with literature, art, and music? There's nothing
whatsoever incompatible between art and science, and in fact the former
has advanced considerably because of developments in the later.
>Creationism is NOT a crock.
Of course it is, and you know it too since your latest attempt to
defend it amounted to claiming that nothing could ever be a "crock".
>Sure, it's not "true" from a scientific point
>of view, but then again it isn't science and shouldn't attempt to be so in
>our era.
What people ought to do is cast it aside like all the other ridiculous
theories about how the world is that people had before the power of reason
was discovered. It is no more reasonable to believe that gods, angels,
and devils are out there than it was to think tht the world was flat or that
leeches can sure a fever and we should recognize that belief in gods and angels
is no more sensible (in fact, is less sensible).
--Brian
--
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human |
| byo...@netcom.com| freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the |
| US Networx, Inc. | creed of slaves." -- William Pitt |
| LAN Doctor | http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/ |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
Matthew P Wiener
>wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
>| ...
>| Nothing wrong with that, but when those who know the mathematics tell
>| you that you are gibbering, then you ought to shut up instead of babbling
>| further on.
>Doubtless if _you_ don't understand something, it's gibbering.
Huh?
Non sequitur.
If I don't understand something, I don't understand it, and leave it
at that. What's the big deal?
>Sometime, though, you might turn your attention to the
>(non-mathematical) parallels between creationism and the Big Bang
>theory as popularized.
Why should I? And what does this have to do with your original
ignorant comments?
Herb Huston
In article <4j2mi2$7...@news.wt.net>, Dan M. <sh...@pop3.wt.net> wrote:
}Kant was religious. He also showed, in the Critique of Practical Reason,
}the difficulty with ethics without an appeal to the trancendental. (This
}doesn't need to be God, Truth and Good can are also transcendental
}principles. I do not insult you when I say that Kant's writings shows a
}better ability to use reason than do yours.
Kant died on February 12, 1804, five years to the day before Charles Darwin
was born. The first edition of Darwin's _Origin of Species_ was published
on November 24, 1859.
1804 < 1809 < 1859.
The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer
that question [What is man?] before 1859 are worthless and
that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.
-- George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man," _Science_
152:472-8 (1966).
So much for Immanuel's superstitions. For a brief summary of Frans de
Waal's latest work, as presented at the AAAS meeting last month, see the
February 16 issue of _Science_.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
Dan M.
>>The uncaused cause arguement is fairly old. Good old Tommy Aquinus.
>>Kant had a very interesting discussion of proof of the existance of God
>>via pure reason. He argued that causality is our ordering of the
>>universe. It is not inherent in the world itself.
>>Oh, by the by, modern
>>physics is not causal, it is probabilistic...You can look up Bell and
>>Wigner's arguements on the Einstein Podanski Rosen paradox (spelling
>>may be wrong) on this. If anyone is interested, I've stuff on that.
>
>>Anyway, one can order and make predictions about the physical world
>>without reference to a Creator. However, it is hard to explain quantum
>>mechanics without a mind to perceive the world. What fun there is in
>>science!
>
>fer...@infobahnos.com (The Omnipotent Philosopher) wrote:
>Kant was wrong. There must be order in the world before we can
>classify it as order. It is impossible to give order to something
>where no order is possible.
>
Sorry I was so brief. According to Kant, phenomenon is the interface
between numenon (undifferentiated stuff) and mind. For Kant, space and
time are the a priori forms of our intuition.
Now, philosophy cannot be emperically proven, because it deals with
matters that go beyond the emperical. However, the state of modern
physics is very understandable in terms of a Kantiant viewpoint, and very
difficult to understand in terms of realism. To paraphrase what I wrote
above about physics.
Electrons do not spin without an observer to force them into an
eigenstate.
Dan M.
Carl J Lydick
=b...@compopt.com (Bob Cormack):
=| ...
=| This would not affect a person's ability to understand what the theory
=| is and what it predicts, however. Since few (if any) discussions in
=| these newsgroups hinge on mathematical derivations, such a person can
=| conceivably contribute to the discussion.
=| ...
=
=That depends on the purpose of the discussion for its
=various pariticipants. It's obvious that a good many of
=the participants in the current Big Bang discussions are
=mainly interested in one-upmanship,
Gordon, it's very bad form to ascribe your own pathetic motivations to others.
Stephen F. Schaffner
> Religion only appeals to those who can not reason.
Hmm. Religion appeals to me; from that I can conclude that . . . that . . .
uh . . . Damn. I just can't figure it out. I sure wish I was smart like
you.
Matt Giwer
>In article <4j2hqe$7...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>> Religion only appeals to those who can not reason.
>Hmm. Religion appeals to me; from that I can conclude that . . . that . . .
>uh . . . Damn. I just can't figure it out. I sure wish I was smart like
>you.
Pray to your god and maybe you will be some day.
Matt Giwer
>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>> Religion only appeals to those who can not reason.
>Really Mr. Giwer?
>Have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? It is the seminal work on
>the potential and the limits of reason. In its framework, quantum
>mechanics is understandable.
One does not need Kant to understand QM.
>Kant was religious.
Religious is hardly a definitive term. Tell me he believed in the
literal truth of the bible or something more useful. If he was like
the rest of the intellectuals of his time he redefined religion so
that it meant nothing like the Deists.
He also showed, in the Critique of Practical Reason,
>the difficulty with ethics without an appeal to the trancendental. (This
>doesn't need to be God, Truth and Good can are also transcendental
>principles. I do not insult you when I say that Kant's writings shows a
>better ability to use reason than do yours. (Heck, I know they show
>better reasoning ability than my own meager efforts.)
Good sir, we have have nearly two centuries of serious science behind
us since he wrote. It is now clear by inspection that our ethical
behavior comes from our being a social species. That is also the
basis of all of our morality if you like the baser version of ethics.
So in fact he was completely wrong but he had a persuasive patter to
sell the books.
Matthew P Wiener
>>Have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? It is the seminal
>>work on the potential and the limits of reason. In its framework,
>>quantum mechanics is understandable.
> One does not need Kant to understand QM.
Sure you do. And because few physicists study Kant, almost no one
understands QM. See S Auyang HOW IS QUANTUM FIELD THEORY POSSIBLE
(MIT, 1995)?
(I exaggerate, but not by much.)
Carl J Lydick
=ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU:
=| Thank you for admitting that, contrary to your earlier claims, you have
=| absolutely nothing substantive to say on the topic of the Big Bang.
=
=Could you identify or quote those "earlier claims", so that
=I can categorically and specifically disabuse you (and
=anyone else listening) of the notion that I ever have
=anything substantive to say about anything?
Gordon, if you think anybody would bother archiving your bullshit, you've got a
vastly overrated opinion of yourself. However, how about a substantive claim
you made AFTER posting your above lie:
================================================================================
Path: nntp-server.caltech.edu!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news.supernet.net!news.iosphere.net!grumpy.insinc.net!news.bconnex.net!news.lightlink.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.us.world.net!news.inc.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!prodigy.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.postmodern,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Creationism IS a crock, thank you kindly...
Date: 22 Mar 1996 16:50:43 -0500
Organization: }"{ }"{ }"{ }"{
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4iv7bj$k...@panix2.panix.com>
References: <4isias$8...@muir.math.niu.edu> <4iu8nt$j...@panix2.panix.com> <4iuj0u$3...@netnews.upenn.edu>
Xref: nntp-server.caltech.edu talk.origins:184914 alt.postmodern:31925 sci.skeptic:156177
wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
| ...
| Nothing wrong with that, but when those who know the mathematics tell
| you that you are gibbering, then you ought to shut up instead of babbling
| further on.
Doubtless if _you_ don't understand something, it's
gibbering. Sometime, though, you might turn your
attention to the (non-mathematical) parallels between
creationism and the Big Bang theory as popularized.
They're both stories, and they're both pretty trashy.
| Deal?
Even _my_ devotion to duty is limited, and a deal
will probably be unnecessary to the happy end of getting
me out of this discussion.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
================================================================================
Now, Gordon, in the above post you claim that there are parallels between the
Big Bang and Creationism. The only parallel that I can see is that they both
happen to involve a beginning to the universe. Your claim is a substantive
one.
Gerald W. Krumenacker, Jr.
this: there is no pure thing out there, or no pure way of experiencing
anything without some sort of language or world-view. Appeals to pure
experience and pure reason are null and void. They don't exist. Nothing
is pure, without language, culture, history. Rather, language mediates,
orders, and prioritizes our sense data in the midst of experience.
Science is one way of doing it. Religion is another.
Bill Gascoyne
And should they not remain separate, and agree to disagree? Then why, oh why,
is it that religion (in some forms only) insists upon primacy in all things,
feels threatened by this separate thing called science, and seeks to usurp the
proper place of science in public school classrooms? *That*, as I see it,
is the crux of the debate.
---
Bill Gascoyne ----- Speak for them?
LSI Logic Corp. LSI |LOGIC| They hardly even
1501 McCarthy Blvd. | | listen to me!
MS E-197 -----
Milpitas, CA 95035 LSI addr: gascan@dcst16 internet: gas...@lsil.com
Matt Giwer
>Appeals to reason, QM, and philosophers miss the point. And, the point is
>this: there is no pure thing out there, or no pure way of experiencing
>anything without some sort of language or world-view. Appeals to pure
>experience and pure reason are null and void. They don't exist. Nothing
>is pure, without language, culture, history. Rather, language mediates,
>orders, and prioritizes our sense data in the midst of experience.
>Science is one way of doing it. Religion is another.
I find it amusing in a conference where people can speak so
knowledeably about biology, paleontology and related fields go off the
mystic deep end when they talk about physics.
Dan M.
>gkr...@nwu.edu (Gerald W. Krumenacker, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>Appeals to reason, QM, and philosophers miss the point. And, the point is
>>this: there is no pure thing out there, or no pure way of experiencing
>>anything without some sort of language or world-view. Appeals to pure
>>experience and pure reason are null and void. They don't exist. Nothing
>>is pure, without language, culture, history. Rather, language mediates,
>>orders, and prioritizes our sense data in the midst of experience.
>>Science is one way of doing it. Religion is another.
>
> I find it amusing in a conference where people can speak so
>knowledeably about biology, paleontology and related fields go off the
>mystic deep end when they talk about physics.
>
>
This isn't the mystic deep end. This is exploring the boundaries of what
is science. Please excuse the parochial view of a physicist when I say
that the sciences you mentioned: biology and paleontology, are both
grounded in other sciences. Biology can have nothing in it that violates
chem., chem must obey the laws of physics.
But physics...it is the fundamental science. (Not that there cannot be
more brillent science done elsewhere, mind you.) The limits of physics
are beyond our common everyday experinces. So we have electrons that
don't spin when there is not an observer. We one particle turn into
another and then back into itself (neutral kaons do this).
One quick note on what Gereld said. This is logical positivism. The
problem with giving everthing to language is that there are true
statements that can be made without a shared experience and without
knowing any reference to base the language upon. This is the famous
"beetle in the box" example.
Dan M.
Mike Wright
> In article <4iria2$o...@panix2.panix.com>, Gordon Fitch <g...@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
> >mathematics and so on can be used as well as an instrument
> >of sour, narrow authoritarianism -- yet another way of
> >putting people down.
> So? Is there _any_ aspect of human culture that can't be misused in
> this way?
Triple-chocolate cake, espresso, and port wine? (I hope. [Does this make
me look like a glutton?])
Mike Wright
Gordon Fitch
| =| Thank you for admitting that, contrary to your earlier claims, you have
| =| absolutely nothing substantive to say on the topic of the Big Bang.
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| =Could you identify or quote those "earlier claims", so that
| =I can categorically and specifically disabuse you (and
| =anyone else listening) of the notion that I ever have
| =anything substantive to say about anything?
|Gordon, if you think anybody would bother archiving your bullshit, you've got a
|vastly overrated opinion of yourself. However, how about a substantive claim
|you made AFTER posting your above lie:
| ...
gcf:
| Doubtless if _you_ don't understand something, it's
| gibbering. Sometime, though, you might turn your
| attention to the (non-mathematical) parallels between
| creationism and the Big Bang theory as popularized.
| They're both stories, and they're both pretty trashy.
|
| | Deal?
|
| Even _my_ devotion to duty is limited, and a deal
| will probably be unnecessary to the happy end of getting
| me out of this discussion.
I don't see anything substantive in any of this. I have
no more than amateur standing in literature and philosophy,
and less than amateur standing in physics and mathematics.
My opinions, therefore, cannot be referred to my authority,
and must be accompanied by immediate substantiation if
they are to be considered substantive. But there is no
substantiation (unless in the mind of a reader). To
someone who doesn't perceive the subject matter in the same
way, and who has a yen for substantivity, then, they are
strictly non-substantive and can be ignored. I suggest you
give this strategy a try; you'll probably be much happier
than you are now, carefully reading and examining my
screeds for sin and error. Why not spurn me as I have
spurned you?
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gordon Fitch
| ...
| In any case, if one is silly enough to render "opinions" about subjects
| like math and physics, which have hard facts, one deserves the
| vituperation one receives, ...
People who utter vituperation generally make fools out
of themselves. I've enjoyed playing along with this,
but I don't know if I deserve so many goodies.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
DaveHatunen
[...]
>I don't see anything substantive in any of this. I have
>no more than amateur standing in literature and philosophy,
>and less than amateur standing in physics and mathematics.
>My opinions, therefore, cannot be referred to my authority,
Opinons may be uttered on substantive matters. If I opine that the Pope
is a liar and a cheat and heads up a vast international conspiracy
intenede to rule the world, I have made an opinon of some substance. To
then claim it is just poor little me and I shouldn't be taken seriously
seems downright silly, and a bit dishonest.
In any case, if one is silly enough to render "opinions" about subjects
like math and physics, which have hard facts, one deserves the
vituperation one receives,
Should you opine that the sum of the real numbers 2 and 3
might be 4.875, do not be surprised if the rest of the world regards
you as an ass. Since this case is obvious, you might be inclined to
agree. But you ahve the unfortunate habit of opining on matters where
the actual case is less well-known and might requires some study to
know, but even when told that you insist on opining. This causes thsoe
who do know that 2 + 3 = 5 to tell yo you are an ass for proceeding.
>and must be accompanied by immediate substantiation if
>they are to be considered substantive. But there is no
>substantiation (unless in the mind of a reader). To
>someone who doesn't perceive the subject matter in the same
>way, and who has a yen for substantivity, then, they are
>strictly non-substantive and can be ignored. I suggest you
>give this strategy a try; you'll probably be much happier
>than you are now, carefully reading and examining my
>screeds for sin and error. Why not spurn me as I have
>spurned you?
But why do you persist in posting nonsense when those who have studied
a subject try to tell you it is nonsense? To claim you should be
ignored is disengenuous. If you wanted to be ignored you could send
yourself email.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Bill Gascoyne
[snip]
>People who utter vituperation generally make fools out
>of themselves. I've enjoyed playing along with this,
>but I don't know if I deserve so many goodies.
If this isn't the USENET definition of "troll," I don't know what is.