Abandon Science
Galen A. Tripp
teach the truth.
Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
what the truth is.
In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
What, you got a problem with that?
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
ZenIsWhen
>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>teach the truth.
>
>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>what the truth is.
>
>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
>What, you got a problem with that?
Yep!
My sides are splitting and I snorted my pepsi!
Luke Herbert
Galen A. Tripp wrote in message <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>...
>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>teach the truth.
>
>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>what the truth is.
>
>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
>What, you got a problem with that?
>
Galen A. Tripp
Luke Herbert wrote:
>
> DIE SHIT DIE
>
> Galen A. Tripp wrote in message <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>...
[snip]
> >
> >What, you got a problem with that?
> >
I take this to mean "yes".
Stew Dean
added to the meme pool:
>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>teach the truth.
>
>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>what the truth is.
>
>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
>What, you got a problem with that?
>
I think I lost you at the last bit Galen.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Landis D. Ragon
>DIE SHIT DIE
Now there's a well-worded, logical, rebuttal, eh?
>Galen A. Tripp wrote in message <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>...
>>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>>teach the truth.
>>
>>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>>what the truth is.
>>
>>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>>
>>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>>
>>What, you got a problem with that?
>>
>>內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
>> Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
>>�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>>
>> -- Galen A. Tripp
>>President for Life
>>International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
>>(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
>>
>
--
Landis D. Ragon
Chief - EAC Database Operations
Homo sapiens is, in it's purest essence, a 35 foot
long intestine with a talent for self-flattery.
Robert Guercio
>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>teach the truth.
>
>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>what the truth is.
>
>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
>What, you got a problem with that?
>
>內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
> Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
>�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>
> -- Galen A. Tripp
>President for Life
>International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
>(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
Galen,
I usually am able to express myself quite intelligently and quite
appropriately. However, after reading your post, only one expression
comes to mind: You are all fucked up.
BobG
Boikat
>
> "Luke Herbert" <LukeH...@Supremacyinc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >DIE SHIT DIE
>
> Now there's a well-worded, logical, rebuttal, eh?
Excitable, isn't he?
[snip]
Boikat
Robert Kern
wrote:
>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>teach the truth.
>
>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>what the truth is.
>
>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
>What, you got a problem with that?
>
>內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
> Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
>�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>
> -- Galen A. Tripp
>President for Life
>International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
>(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
<shaking head>
Galen, Galen, Galen. You're not supposed to sign your *real* name.
You have to come up with some cute anagram. My pick would have been
Alan Peptrig.
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
This space | Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
intentionally | - Richard Harter
left blank. |
Michael Painter
Galen A. Tripp <galen...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:37C1B2CD...@gte.net...
> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> teach the truth.
>
> Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
> reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
> disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
> of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
> what the truth is.
>
> In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
> found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
> in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
> words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
> there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
> Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
> What, you got a problem with that?
None other than the mechanics of the change.
We will have to eliminate school districts as we know them now and create
say 50,000 of them so each creationist version of the absolute truth can be
taught.
The school book industry will probably fight it when they realize only one
book is needed.
Wait. I just realized that rapture strikes 9/11/99 so they'll all be gone
anyway.
No need for change.
Tim G.
Of course, creationists have no valid claim to truth and therefore the
argument is worth shit.
Galen A. Tripp <galen...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:37C1B2CD...@gte.net...
> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> teach the truth.
>
> Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
> reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
> disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
> of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
> what the truth is.
>
> In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
> found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
> in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
> words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
> there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
> Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
> What, you got a problem with that?
>
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Luke Herbert"
<LukeH...@Supremacyinc.freeserve.co.uk>:
>DIE SHIT DIE
Well, that's *one* vote for "Yeah, I got a problem with
that!". Or maybe he has cholera...
>
>Galen A. Tripp wrote in message <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>...
>>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>>teach the truth.
>>
>>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>>what the truth is.
>>
>>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>>
>>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>>
>>What, you got a problem with that?
>>
>>內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
>> Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
>>�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>>
>> -- Galen A. Tripp
>>President for Life
>>International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
>>(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
>>
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Galen A. Tripp"
<galen...@gte.net>:
>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>teach the truth.
That would gratify Jabriol, no doubt.
>
>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>what the truth is.
Ummm...OK.
>
>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
Ummm...correct...
>
>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
Ummm...your logic seems flawless. (Except for the *really
tiny item* of assuming that the fundies' "truth" is *THE*
truth, that is.)
>
>What, you got a problem with that?
"Hey! I'm emotin' here, buddy!"
Landis D. Ragon
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by rgue...@monmouth.com (Robert
Guercio):
>On 23 Aug 1999 16:30:22 -0400, "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>>teach the truth.
>>
>>Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>>reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>>disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>>of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>>what the truth is.
>>
>>In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>>found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>>in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>>words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>>there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>>
>>Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>>they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>>
>>What, you got a problem with that?
>>
>>內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
>> Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
>>�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>>
>> -- Galen A. Tripp
>>President for Life
>>International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
>>(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
>Galen,
>I usually am able to express myself quite intelligently and quite
>appropriately. However, after reading your post, only one expression
>comes to mind: You are all fucked up.
OK, that's *two*.
Landis D. Ragon
>On 23 Aug 1999 19:16:27 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by rgue...@monmouth.com (Robert
>Guercio):
>
>>On 23 Aug 1999 16:30:22 -0400, "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net>
>>wrote:
<Galen's satirical post deleted>
>>Galen,
>>I usually am able to express myself quite intelligently and quite
>>appropriately. However, after reading your post, only one expression
>>comes to mind: You are all fucked up.
>
>OK, that's *two*.
>
Quick, Galen, set the hook, before they get away!
<g>
otter
>
> Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
> What, you got a problem with that?
Hey, if I didn't think this was tongue in cheek then I'd say you were
the creationist consultant working with the Board of Diseducation here
in Kansas.
Paul
Sean Rea
isn't truth in science simply the best way to explain things at the current
point in time? Just because new evidence is uncovered to 'update' science,
the fundamentals of it are still true. That's what's great - you CAN modify
science, you can say, "we were wrong". When was the last time a creationist
admitted that creationism might be inherently flawed? When was the last
time creationists modified their theory?
I would believe something much more that is changeable, that does adapt,
rather than an idea which refuses to be critized, one that discounts all
other theorys. It speaks of a very self-centeredness. It's also much more
noble to admit to being wrong and to question what we assume to be true
rather than lay something, such as creationism out, and claim that it is
TRUE, with no evidence to prove it. Where is the evidence that there is a
divine being which created everything?
Evolution is much more proveable than the presence of a divine being by
simply looking around. Would you, as a creationist, like to tell me that
your divine being set all this up, made it look like evolution take place,
made it look like the earth is 6 billion years old, that the universe is 10
billion years old, and so on? Is everything we see just a trick or
something? That's the only evidence, so shaky at best, that I would see to
prove that a divine being exists. I don't believe a book that's several
thousand years old. There are few things thousands of years old that
haven't been revised, looked at again, and compared with modern knowledge.
Sean Rea
In article <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>, "Galen A. Tripp"
<galen...@gte.net> wrote:
> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> teach the truth.
<SNIP>
--
---------------------------------------
Sean Rea - sr...@dnc.net
By sending spam to this email you agree
that you will pay me $500 in damages.
Boikat
limits on catches per day, like they do for trout
fishing.
That one went clear to the jawbone. :}
Boikat
Galen A. Tripp
Robert Guercio wrote:
>
> On 23 Aug 1999 16:30:22 -0400, "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> >teach the truth.
> >
> >Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
> >reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
> >disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
> >of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
> >what the truth is.
> >
> >In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
> >found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
> >in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
> >words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
> >there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
> >
> >Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> >they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
> >
> >What, you got a problem with that?
> >
> >內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
> > Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
> >�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
> >
> > -- Galen A. Tripp
> >President for Life
> >International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
> >(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
> Galen,
> I usually am able to express myself quite intelligently and quite
> appropriately. However, after reading your post, only one expression
> comes to mind: You are all fucked up.
>
Yes, but how is my logic?
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
> BobG
Galen A. Tripp
> Galen, Galen, Galen. You're not supposed to sign your *real* name.
> You have to come up with some cute anagram. My pick would have been
> Alan Peptrig.
>
Sorry :(
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
Galen A. Tripp
"Tim G." wrote:
>
> The logic of this argument rests on creationist claim to truth being valid.
> Of course, creationists have no valid claim to truth and therefore the
> argument is worth shit.
>
Tim, meet postmodernism.
Postmodernism, meet Tim.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
> Galen A. Tripp <galen...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:37C1B2CD...@gte.net...
Galen A. Tripp
A. Troll". I caught *way* more than I thought I would with this thing.
It's a fine essay, Sean. I hope you did not spent too much time on it.
;p
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
> In article <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>, "Galen A. Tripp"
> <galen...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> > teach the truth.
>
may...@andrews.edu
Well, Galen, I think you may have screwed up here, partly because of
t.o.'s collective reading comprehension problem (which honestly, I
don't think is going to be remedied in the forseeable future; it seems
to be partly due to stupidity, which is more or less a genetic
condition, and partly due to the intense emotions, relatively speaking,
which are involved). I should also note that, if my suspicion is
correct that I was "the only one" to catch your real point, I should
say that I disagree with it, for reasons given below.
> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> teach the truth.
>
> Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
> reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
> disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
> of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
> what the truth is.
>
> In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
> found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be
overthrown
> in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
> words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
> there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the
moment.
>
> Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
> What, you got a problem with that?
You chose a rather dramatic and confusingly worded way to make your
point (a rather common point, I might add, assuming that I understand
you, here: namely, that the creationist perception of truth, which you
have called "truth," per se, as a form of rhetorical shorthand, does
not correspond to the scientific perception of truth, and that
therefore creationism does not belong in the science classroom), an
approach which can spell trouble amongst the t.o. posters.
As to why I disagree with you, I would say that your rhetorical
shorthand places too much emphasis on the uncertainty inherent in
science, an aspect which has always seemed to receive too much
emphasis, IMV, at t.o. in general.
--vince
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Shaun Denney
wrote:
<snip>
>Yes, but how is my logic?
Abysmal. Your argument boils down to "creationism doesn't change,
therefore it must be true" - which is false on both counts.
HTH
Shaun
David E. Kahana
> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> teach the truth.
>
> Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
> reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
> disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
> of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
> what the truth is.
>
> In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
> found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
> in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
> words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
> there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>
> Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>
> What, you got a problem with that?
>
> 內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
> Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
> �虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>
> -- Galen A. Tripp
> President for Life
> International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
> (If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
Not at all. I consider your logic to be completely unassailable!
Who on earth could object to teaching the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?
BTW, could you drop us a line when these events seem to be about to come
to pass in NY? Sometime around then I plan to pack up all of my belongings and
emigrate to the Cyclades. Life as a beach bum always has appealed <g>
cheers,
- dave k.
Galen A. Tripp
may...@andrews.edu wrote:
>
> In article <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>,
> "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> Well, Galen, I think you may have screwed up here, partly because of
> t.o.'s collective reading comprehension problem (which honestly, I
> don't think is going to be remedied in the forseeable future; it seems
> to be partly due to stupidity, which is more or less a genetic
> condition, and partly due to the intense emotions, relatively speaking,
> which are involved). I should also note that, if my suspicion is
> correct that I was "the only one" to catch your real point, I should
> say that I disagree with it, for reasons given below.
>
> > I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> > teach the truth.
> >
> > Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
> > reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
> > disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
> > of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
> > what the truth is.
> >
> > In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
> > found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be
> overthrown
> > in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
> > words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
> > there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the
> moment.
> >
> > Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> > they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
> >
> > What, you got a problem with that?
>
> You chose a rather dramatic and confusingly worded way to make your
> point (a rather common point, I might add, assuming that I understand
> you, here: namely, that the creationist perception of truth, which you
> have called "truth," per se, as a form of rhetorical shorthand, does
> not correspond to the scientific perception of truth, and that
> therefore creationism does not belong in the science classroom), an
> approach which can spell trouble amongst the t.o. posters.
>
> As to why I disagree with you, I would say that your rhetorical
> shorthand places too much emphasis on the uncertainty inherent in
> science, an aspect which has always seemed to receive too much
> emphasis, IMV, at t.o. in general.
>
And you say *my* post was "confusingly worded"?
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
Clark Dorman
"Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net> writes:
> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> teach the truth.
Nope. They should teach the Truth. cf. Johnson's "Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds."
--
Clark Dorman "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/D.html -Francis Crick
Laurence A. Moran
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[re: Galen's article about "truth"]
>This keeps up, we're going to have to impose limits on catches per day,
>like they do for trout fishing.
It wasn't a troll. It was obvious sarcasm - at least it was obvious to
most of us. Unfortunately there are a lot of sarcasm impaired people out
there. The new "rule" is that we're supposed to put little symbols on our
posting so that the sarcasm impaired will know that we're not serious.
I think it's more fun to omit the symbols and smiley faces just to see
what happens.
To bad Mark Twain and Alexander Pope didn't know about smileys. I bet
there were huge numbers of people who thought they were serious. Here's
one time when Pope was being serious.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope
Larry Moran
Dave O'Neill
Shaun Denney <sd...@NOSPAMcam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:37c268a2....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> On 24 Aug 1999 03:19:58 -0400, "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Yes, but how is my logic?
>
> Abysmal. Your argument boils down to "creationism doesn't change,
> therefore it must be true" - which is false on both counts.
In terms of "creation logic" you know, I can't fault the guy.
Which, I hope, was more or less his point.
:-)
Dave
If I could offer you one tip in life it would be contracting...
Dave O'Neill
Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:7puf6e$g2c$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> In article <37C2232D...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [re: Galen's article about "truth"]
>
>
> most of us. Unfortunately there are a lot of sarcasm impaired people out
> there. The new "rule" is that we're supposed to put little symbols on our
> posting so that the sarcasm impaired will know that we're not serious.
> I think it's more fun to omit the symbols and smiley faces just to see
> what happens.
I would strongly advise not moving to England, however, for the sarcasm
impared I have a list of standard British colloquialisms...
;-)
Dave
Richar...@hockeymail.com
> >
> > The logic of this argument rests on creationist claim to truth being
> > valid. Of course, creationists have no valid claim to truth and
> > therefore the argument is worth shit.
> >
>
> Tim, meet postmodernism.
> Postmodernism, meet Tim.
Delurking just for a sec', and going fairly off-topic, too:
There's a common misconception -- mainly among conservative-minded
folk, though they don't have a monopoly on this -- that postmodernism's
central tenet is something along the lines of "There is no absolute
truth, therefore language has no meaning." Of course this is total
nonsense. A good general rule of thumb is: anyone on Usenet offering
a positive definition of the word "postmodernism" probably can't state
what the "modernism" was to which "postmodernism" is "post," and can't,
morover, delineate the difference between modernism and modernity.
In simpler terms: people on Usenet offering affirmative definitions
of the word "postmodernism" almost invariably have no idea of
what they're talking about, and usually think it has something to
do with "relativism," which it doesn't. Lacking
the ability to grasp differences between etymologically similar terms
within a specialized vocabulary, such persons tend to dismiss things
that they can't grasp as "newspeak" and use the word "postmodernism"
as shorthand for "that's nonsense."
Such persons should, accordingly, be killfiled in short order.
Relurking,
rs
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
PaulDanaher
thought was too stupid to be taken seriously on another ng, and I was
greeted not only by flames from people who didn't know me but blank
incomprehension and enquiries from people I thought *did* know where I was
coming from, based on other exchanges.
Oh, for the record: I'm not agreeing that Galen made a mistake.
<may...@andrews.edu> wrote in message news:7ptlso$jr6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>,
> "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> Well, Galen, I think you may have screwed up here, partly because of
> t.o.'s collective reading comprehension problem (which honestly, I
> don't think is going to be remedied in the forseeable future; it seems
> to be partly due to stupidity, which is more or less a genetic
> condition, and partly due to the intense emotions, relatively speaking,
> which are involved). I should also note that, if my suspicion is
> correct that I was "the only one" to catch your real point, I should
> say that I disagree with it, for reasons given below.
>
> > I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> > teach the truth.
> >
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by sr...@dnc.net (Sean Rea):
That's (at least) *three* (sorry; I lost count).
> Besides the obvious flaw that you assume your beliefs are the truth,
>isn't truth in science simply the best way to explain things at the current
>point in time? Just because new evidence is uncovered to 'update' science,
>the fundamentals of it are still true. That's what's great - you CAN modify
>science, you can say, "we were wrong". When was the last time a creationist
>admitted that creationism might be inherently flawed? When was the last
>time creationists modified their theory?
> I would believe something much more that is changeable, that does adapt,
>rather than an idea which refuses to be critized, one that discounts all
>other theorys. It speaks of a very self-centeredness. It's also much more
>noble to admit to being wrong and to question what we assume to be true
>rather than lay something, such as creationism out, and claim that it is
>TRUE, with no evidence to prove it. Where is the evidence that there is a
>divine being which created everything?
> Evolution is much more proveable than the presence of a divine being by
>simply looking around. Would you, as a creationist, like to tell me that
>your divine being set all this up, made it look like evolution take place,
>made it look like the earth is 6 billion years old, that the universe is 10
>billion years old, and so on? Is everything we see just a trick or
>something? That's the only evidence, so shaky at best, that I would see to
>prove that a divine being exists. I don't believe a book that's several
>thousand years old. There are few things thousands of years old that
>haven't been revised, looked at again, and compared with modern knowledge.
>
>Sean Rea
>
>In article <37C1B2CD...@gte.net>, "Galen A. Tripp"
><galen...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>> teach the truth.
>
>
>
><SNIP>
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by sd...@NOSPAMcam.ac.uk (Shaun
Denney):
Put him back, Galen; you've reached your daily limit.
>On 24 Aug 1999 03:19:58 -0400, "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Yes, but how is my logic?
>
>Abysmal. Your argument boils down to "creationism doesn't change,
>therefore it must be true" - which is false on both counts.
>
>HTH
>
>Shaun
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net>:
>This keeps up, we're going to have to impose
>limits on catches per day, like they do for trout
>fishing.
No need; it's always "catch and release". (Did you ever try
to *clean* one of those things?!?)
;-)
Boikat
>
> In article <37C2232D...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [re: Galen's article about "truth"]
>
> >like they do for trout fishing.
>
I wasn't thinking of it as a troll, but that
people did not recognize it as sarcasm. More of a
Loki thing to do.
>It was obvious sarcasm - at least it was obvious to
> most of us. Unfortunately there are a lot of sarcasm impaired people out
> there. The new "rule" is that we're supposed to put little symbols on our
> posting so that the sarcasm impaired will know that we're not serious.
> I think it's more fun to omit the symbols and smiley faces just to see
> what happens.
>
> To bad Mark Twain and Alexander Pope didn't know about smileys. I bet
> there were huge numbers of people who thought they were serious. Here's
> one time when Pope was being serious.
>
> "A little learning is a dangerous thing;
> Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
> There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
> And drinking largely sobers us again."
>
> Alexander Pope
>
> Larry Moran
>
Boikat
Galen A. Tripp
Boikat wrote:
>
> Laurence A. Moran wrote:
> >
> > In article <37C2232D...@bellsouth.net>,
> > Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > [re: Galen's article about "truth"]
> >
> > >This keeps up, we're going to have to impose limits on catches per day,
> > >like they do for trout fishing.
> >
> > It wasn't a troll.
>
> I wasn't thinking of it as a troll, but that
> people did not recognize it as sarcasm. More of a
> Loki thing to do.
>
But not *too* Loki. I mean, many people did get it.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Galen A. Tripp
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
[snip]
> > Larry Moran
> >
>
> Boikat
Clark Dorman
> > >
> > > The logic of this argument rests on creationist claim to truth being
> > > valid. Of course, creationists have no valid claim to truth and
> > > therefore the argument is worth shit.
> >
> > Tim, meet postmodernism.
> > Postmodernism, meet Tim.
>
> Delurking just for a sec', and going fairly off-topic, too:
I disagree that it is very off-topic, merely because there are
accusations of postmodernism that occur fairly frequently here,
using the word as an epithet.
Also, don't delurk just yet because you've done a cruel thing,
which is to tell people what something is not and neglected to
say what it _is_.
> There's a common misconception -- mainly among conservative-minded
> folk, though they don't have a monopoly on this -- that postmodernism's
> central tenet is something along the lines of "There is no absolute
> truth, therefore language has no meaning." Of course this is total
> nonsense.
Please let us know what postmodernism's central tenet really is,
then, if one exists.
> A good general rule of thumb is: anyone on Usenet offering
> a positive definition of the word "postmodernism" probably can't state
> what the "modernism" was to which "postmodernism" is "post," and can't,
> morover, delineate the difference between modernism and modernity.
Ok, please tell us what the modernism is that postmodernism is post to.
I always think of Piet Mondrian's paintings, which, frankly, I
just don't get. I don't know what modernism is in terms of
literature.
[snip]
Kevin Anthoney
>
> On 23 Aug 1999 16:30:22 -0400, "Galen A. Tripp" <galen...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
> >teach the truth.
> >
> >reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
> >disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
> >of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
> >what the truth is.
> >
> >In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
> >found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
> >in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
> >words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
> >there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
> >
> >Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
> >they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
> >
> >What, you got a problem with that?
> >
> > Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
> >�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
> >
> > -- Galen A. Tripp
> >President for Life
> >International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
> >(If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
>
> Galen, Galen, Galen. You're not supposed to sign your *real* name.
> You have to come up with some cute anagram. My pick would have been
> Alan Peptrig.
Nah, Alan Grippet would have been better.
>
> Robert Kern |
> ----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
> This space | Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
> intentionally | - Richard Harter
> left blank. |
--
Kevin Anthoney
kant...@freenet.co.uk
Richard Carnes
Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>It wasn't a troll. It was obvious sarcasm - at least it was obvious to
>most of us. Unfortunately there are a lot of sarcasm impaired people out
>there. The new "rule" is that we're supposed to put little symbols on our
>posting so that the sarcasm impaired will know that we're not serious.
>I think it's more fun to omit the symbols and smiley faces just to see
>what happens.
As a sarcasm-challenged person, I am highly offended by your use of
the term "sarcasm impaired," which implies that the sarcasm-challenged
are inferior to the sarcasm-abled. I demand an immediate retraction
and apology.
<no smiley>
Richard Carnes
John Wilkins
(Richard Carnes) wrote:
Not *more* of this damned PC terminology! FYI it's "sarcastic" and "naive
wide-eyed credulous fool", not sarcasm-abled and sarcasm-imparied.
<smiley unnecessary>
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne,
Australia <mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Xenophile
>The logic of this argument rests on creationist claim to truth being valid. Of course, creationists have no valid
>claim to truth and therefore the argument is worth shit.
You give it more value than I do.
>
>Galen A. Tripp <galen...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:37C1B2CD...@gte.net...
>> I think everyone agrees that the schools in the United States should
>> teach the truth.
>>
>> Creationists hold that a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible
>> reveals the truth. Creationists are what they are because they
>> disregard any evidence that may conflict with a literal interpretation
>> of the Holy Bible. In this manner, creationists have a firm grasp of
>> what the truth is.
>>
>> In science, "the truth" is open to modification as new evidence is
>> found. No fact in science is so firmly held that it can't be overthrown
>> in the light of new (conflicting, but verified) evidence. In other
>> words, in science there is no final, unchanging and ultimate *truth*,
>> there is only what is thought to be the best explanation at the moment.
>>
>> Therefore, if the schools in the United States are to teach the truth,
>> they must abandon science and adopt creationism.
>>
>> What, you got a problem with that?
>>
>> 內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
>> Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp Galen A. Tripp
>> �虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>>
>> -- Galen A. Tripp
>> President for Life
>> International Organization Of People Named Galen A. Tripp
>> (If your name is Galen A. Tripp, ask about our dues!)
>>
>>
>
-
xenophile (ZEEN-oh-file): n.
1) one who has a fondness, desire or love for that which is different, foreign, or exotic.
2) an excellent comic magazine written and penciled by Phil Foglio (spelled "xXxenophile").
Barsoom has automation.