"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:C%Gtf.141$Dh.88@dukeread04...

IF the SCOTUS resends the redistricting of Texas and a few Dems beat out a
few Republicans caught in Abramof's pocket we may see the second
impeachment
proceedings in as many administrations.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'd bet you that it would never happen, Glenn. Two impeachments in two
administrations, with a sort-of war going on, isn't going to fly.

More likely it will get hung up in the politics. I'll be surprised if a suit
even gets to a federal court.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

Think the Barrett Report will be released anytime soon? Or are they
saving it for Hillaries run for office?

Chuckle

I kind of doubt it. Unpublished, it's become a legend that gives bloggers
and talk-show nitwits something to howl about. If it gets published, they
might be really disappointed.

Ask yourself this, Gunner: If there was anything to it, would the RNC,
Hastert, DeLay, and the rest of the neocon youth, given their majorities in
both houses of Congress, sit on it? Especially now, with Bush taking hits
from about five sides at once?

You're talking about some of the most brutal and ruthless political hit men
in modern politics letting a big one get away. Or maybe they know what's in
it, and why Barrett closed down his grand juries three years ago...and
they're much better off keeping it alive as a myth, rather than letting it
come to light and let another one fizzle out on them, yet again.

That is, unless you think those neocon clowns are just too weak and helpless
to do anything about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:21:01 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:

There is no question the law was broken. There is a slight question of
whether the law is superceded by another law. And there is a large
question
of whether it's all constitutional -- including the idea that Congress
could
ever authorize the president to violate the 4th Amendment. That's where
the
majority of legal scholars think the administration would come up short,
if
the case ever gets to the Court.

But it probably won't. On all points, that's exacly what I've said from
the
beginning.

IF the SCOTUS resends the redistricting of Texas and a few Dems beat out a
few Republicans caught in Abramof's pocket we may see the second impeachment
proceedings in as many administrations.


There is that magic "IF" word.

Like "IF democrats had any morals or self respect at all, they would
have forced Bubba to resign, like Republicans forced Nixon to resign"

But hey...Democrats/Self Respect/Morals...all oxymorons. Shrug

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

J. Clarke wrote:

No, ID does not go into religion, religion goes into ID.

Well that could be the case.


According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Yes, that is their propaganda. Or are you laboring under the misconception
that the "Discovery Institute" is anything but a front for the
fundamentalists?

I guess they fooled me, big time. I was going by what they say, not by
what others on an internet group say.


Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is god,
time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the intelligent
designer might be. Now maybe some people like those school board folks
in Dover would like to use it to further their own purposes but that's
not basic ID from what I've read.

Uh huh. Once they've sold intelligent design then they can go on to sell
the designer. One step at a time.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories.


Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they are
the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.
What are they afraid of?

What leads you to believe that "evolutionists" are _afraid_ of anything? If
the "intelligent design" people can present real evidence that their
hypothesis explains the observed data better than the evolutionary model
then the scientific community will happily embrace it.

Happily? I don't think that's been the case. They don't want to look at
the data. They already have their inquiring minds made up. Did you hear
what happened to Richard Sternberg when he published an article on ID?
He was retaliated against for simply publishing an article. He didn't
even agree with the article but thought it important to put it out
there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5007508
Sure seems to me that the Darwinists want to shut down debate.

I can't figure it out.

GW

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:37:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .

Still getting a woody everytime you see Hillary or Pelosi on TV?

Beat-up-looking women appeal more to the red-state crowd. They like
'em
dried out a little, like jerky.

So you no longer get a woody from Hillary or Pelosi? Blood pressure
med side effect?

They're way too old for me. However, I'll bet they're pretty wild. Did
you
read about Barbara Boxer's novel? Hot stuff. Maureen Dowd has an
editorial
about it today.

Lesbian erotica never appealed to me.

I think it's something about horses. The title of Dowd's column is "Rein In
the Stallion Sex."

Politicians write kinky novels. Here's a passage from one that Scooter Libby
wrote back in 1996:

"At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple
with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with
their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a
stick when it seemed to lose interest."

'Something about bestiality and politicians...

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:40:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .

Think the Barrett Report will be released anytime soon? Or are they
saving it for Hillaries run for office?

Chuckle

I kind of doubt it. Unpublished, it's become a legend that gives bloggers
and talk-show nitwits something to howl about. If it gets published, they
might be really disappointed.

Ask yourself this, Gunner: If there was anything to it, would the RNC,
Hastert, DeLay, and the rest of the neocon youth, given their majorities in
both houses of Congress, sit on it? Especially now, with Bush taking hits
from about five sides at once?

You're talking about some of the most brutal and ruthless political hit men
in modern politics letting a big one get away. Or maybe they know what's in
it, and why Barrett closed down his grand juries three years ago...and
they're much better off keeping it alive as a myth, rather than letting it
come to light and let another one fizzle out on them, yet again.

That is, unless you think those neocon clowns are just too weak and helpless
to do anything about it.

Frankly..I think they are saving it for a nuke.

Never swat flys with a 458

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

I personally don't think that ID goes into religion at all. According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Nobody believes them, though. The evidence presented at the trial made them
out to be complete liars. Conservative judges usually don't say things like
that on a whim.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they are
the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.
What are they afraid of?

I don't think they're afraid as much as they are insulted. The ID promoters
are trying to pull a fast one, and the suggestion is in the air that the
scientists are too geeky and effete to fight back.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:40:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .

Think the Barrett Report will be released anytime soon? Or are they
saving it for Hillaries run for office?

Chuckle

I kind of doubt it. Unpublished, it's become a legend that gives bloggers
and talk-show nitwits something to howl about. If it gets published, they
might be really disappointed.

Ask yourself this, Gunner: If there was anything to it, would the RNC,
Hastert, DeLay, and the rest of the neocon youth, given their majorities
in
both houses of Congress, sit on it? Especially now, with Bush taking hits
from about five sides at once?

You're talking about some of the most brutal and ruthless political hit
men
in modern politics letting a big one get away. Or maybe they know what's
in
it, and why Barrett closed down his grand juries three years ago...and
they're much better off keeping it alive as a myth, rather than letting
it
come to light and let another one fizzle out on them, yet again.

That is, unless you think those neocon clowns are just too weak and
helpless
to do anything about it.

Frankly..I think they are saving it for a nuke.

Never swat flys with a 458

That I would doubt. I don't think they can keep it up for that long.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Gunner Asch says...

Atheism is just another faith based belief system.

And here I thought it was a lack-of-faith based belief system....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article .com, Gus says...

Evolution is a process that works but it has a hard time explaining
everything. If Darwinism is true then it should have no problem
standing up to a little debate. Isn't that open-mindedness?

And who better to raise the issues than other folks who make
biology their life's work? Gus would you want your barber
to come into your home and critique the plumber working there?

Would you want your car mechanic to come into the operating room
and point out where the doctor is goofing while they take your
appendix out?

If the answers to those questions are 'no' then why would you want
the creationism folks to have their ideas pushed to the head
of the line, installed in textbooks, and taught in public schools?

If by "standing up to a little debate" you mean that folks should
publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, so that anyone
and everyone can take a crack at them out in the open, and debate
the veracity of every single datum, then I would maintain that
biologists do a very good job of that indeed, right *now*.

All those creation folks don't seem to want to participate
in that arena though. I wonder why. I would think if they
wanted to expose their ideas to the light of day, they too should
do what all the biologists do - publish their research in a
peer reviewed journal so it can be examined closely. Oddly they
don't do that. Again I wonder why that is.

Hint gus: the creationists are not interested in debate. They
are interested in getting the biblical version of creation
installed in public school curricula.

You have done a pretty good job of disclosing your credentials
as supporter of the Creationism Institute, now it would be interesting
to see just how much metalworking you do when you're not banging
the ID drum.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:04:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Frankly..I think they are saving it for a nuke.

Never swat flys with a 458

That I would doubt. I don't think they can keep it up for that long.

--
Ed Huntress

Its been well demonstrated that both the Clintons used the IRS as
their own personal shock troops, so its not like its an "IF"

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:07 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner Asch says...

Atheism is just another faith based belief system.

And here I thought it was a lack-of-faith based belief system....

Jim

Nope. They believe that there is no God, are quite sure of it. When
lots of evidence points otherwise. So without any way to prove
it..they go by faith.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

jim rozen wrote:

Gus, exactly what is your background that you have all the ID
creationism patter down just *so* pat? There's hardly been a
trick you've missed here. g

No background. I just find it interesting.

Exactly how much metalworking *do* you do?

Oh no, I've been outed ! I'm more into sawdust.
G

Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

No, ID does not go into religion, religion goes into ID.

Well that could be the case.


According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Yes, that is their propaganda. Or are you laboring under the
misconception that the "Discovery Institute" is anything but a front for
the fundamentalists?

I guess they fooled me, big time. I was going by what they say, not by
what others on an internet group say.

Research them. You'll find that they are in fact an advocacy group.

Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is god,
time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the intelligent
designer might be. Now maybe some people like those school board folks
in Dover would like to use it to further their own purposes but that's
not basic ID from what I've read.

Uh huh. Once they've sold intelligent design then they can go on to sell
the designer. One step at a time.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? They're salesmen, they're trying to
sell something. They need to get the marks to accept one piece of the
pitch before they can get them to accept the next part.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they are
the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.
What are they afraid of?

What leads you to believe that "evolutionists" are _afraid_ of anything?
If the "intelligent design" people can present real evidence that their
hypothesis explains the observed data better than the evolutionary model
then the scientific community will happily embrace it.

Happily? I don't think that's been the case. They don't want to look at
the data.

What "data"? The issue is not data, the issue is interpretation.

They already have their inquiring minds made up.

Sez you.

Did you hear
what happened to Richard Sternberg when he published an article on ID?

He stuck his neck out and took the heat. By mentioning him you defeat your
own argument.

He was retaliated against for simply publishing an article.

Now let's see, the people who allegedly "retaliated" were government
agencies, not the scientific community as a whole, as well as an advocacy
group no more credible than the ones that you seem to support. Please
understand--bureaucrats are not scientists, but they do tend to make life
miserable for the scientists who work for them.

He didn't
even agree with the article but thought it important to put it out
there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5007508
Sure seems to me that the Darwinists want to shut down debate.

What do the punctuated equilibriumists want? By continuing to use the term
"Darwinism" you demonstrate that you don't know a whole Hell of a lot about
evolutionary models. The Darwinian model is one of several.

I can't figure it out.

That much is clear.

GW

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gunner Asch wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:07 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner Asch
says...

Atheism is just another faith based belief system.

And here I thought it was a lack-of-faith based belief system....

Jim

Nope. They believe that there is no God, are quite sure of it. When
lots of evidence points otherwise. So without any way to prove
it..they go by faith.

A while back I had the good fortune to discuss religion with J. Micheal
Straczynski, the creater of, among other things, the Babylon 5 TV series.
At the time I called myself an agnostic. He's a card-carrying
serial-numbered atheist who used to write a column for their magazine. In
his view, as he explained it to me, an "atheist" is one who just plain
doesn't give a damn about religion and doesn't want to be harassed by the
religious, and he went on to say that the reason he quit writing for the
magazine was that he was disgusted with the way that atheism had been
turned into a religion by the folks who have Revealed Truth that There Is
No God. Note that I'm paraphrasing a lengthy discussion and if my
recollection is at variance with his, I apologize to Joe.

Personally I refer to the religious sort of atheist as an "antitheist".

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:53:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Lesbian erotica never appealed to me.

I think it's something about horses. The title of Dowd's column is "Rein In
the Stallion Sex."

Politicians write kinky novels. Here's a passage from one that Scooter Libby
wrote back in 1996:

"At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple
with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with
their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a
stick when it seemed to lose interest."

'Something about bestiality and politicians...

Isn't Libby a winger? About to squeal ....
The tension mounts, does it not? Who will fall first, second, .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 05:35:20 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Its been well demonstrated that both the Clintons used the IRS as
their own personal shock troops, so its not like its an "IF"

It's been well demonstrated that you have the dull side out.
Clearly you are thinking of Nixon.
--
Cliff

"I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat leaves & twigs
.... roots, maybe, but no vegetation... " -- Samanda

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:25:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

with a sort-of war going on

The war on poverty or the war on cancer?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:47:16 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

like Republicans forced Nixon to resign

snicker
--
Cliff

Marvin W. Klotz wrote:

Not that it's likely to be taught in high school, but I can't wait until
someone explains Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to the fundie rednecks.

They'll totally freak out if they learn that their so-called intelligent
designer can't simultaneously determine position and momentum.

Regards, Marv


Marv your GREAT!
There that'l hold em a while. :-)
...lew...

J. Clarke wrote:
Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

No, ID does not go into religion, religion goes into ID.

Well that could be the case.


According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Yes, that is their propaganda. Or are you laboring under the
misconception that the "Discovery Institute" is anything but a front for
the fundamentalists?

I guess they fooled me, big time. I was going by what they say, not by
what others on an internet group say.

Research them. You'll find that they are in fact an advocacy group.

Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is god,
time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the intelligent
designer might be. Now maybe some people like those school board folks
in Dover would like to use it to further their own purposes but that's
not basic ID from what I've read.

Uh huh. Once they've sold intelligent design then they can go on to sell
the designer. One step at a time.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? They're salesmen, they're trying to
sell something. They need to get the marks to accept one piece of the
pitch before they can get them to accept the next part.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they are
the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.
What are they afraid of?

What leads you to believe that "evolutionists" are _afraid_ of anything?
If the "intelligent design" people can present real evidence that their
hypothesis explains the observed data better than the evolutionary model
then the scientific community will happily embrace it.

Happily? I don't think that's been the case. They don't want to look at
the data.

What "data"? The issue is not data, the issue is interpretation.

They already have their inquiring minds made up.

Sez you.

Did you hear
what happened to Richard Sternberg when he published an article on ID?

He stuck his neck out and took the heat. By mentioning him you defeat your
own argument.

He was retaliated against for simply publishing an article.

Now let's see, the people who allegedly "retaliated" were government
agencies, not the scientific community as a whole, as well as an advocacy
group no more credible than the ones that you seem to support. Please
understand--bureaucrats are not scientists, but they do tend to make life
miserable for the scientists who work for them.

He didn't
even agree with the article but thought it important to put it out
there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5007508
Sure seems to me that the Darwinists want to shut down debate.


What do the punctuated equilibriumists want? By continuing to use the term
"Darwinism" you demonstrate that you don't know a whole Hell of a lot about
evolutionary models. The Darwinian model is one of several.


Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings. When I say "Darwinism" I'm
talking about the idea that life changes over time through natural
selection creating new species.
You asked, "What do the punctuated equilibriumists want?" Well, can
only make a guess. Could it be that they realize that Darwin's original
theory had problems? Like the vast amounts of time it would take for
natural selection to produce the huge number of species. Then too, it
fails to explain the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. My guess
is that the punctuated equillibrimists wanted to save the theory by
proposing the idea that a lizard could give birth to a chicken. g

I wonder, do the punctuated equillibrimists face censorship and
judicial decrees if they try to promote their theory?

I can't figure it out.

That much is clear.

GW

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

No, ID does not go into religion, religion goes into ID.

Well that could be the case.


According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific
theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and
the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Yes, that is their propaganda. Or are you laboring under the
misconception that the "Discovery Institute" is anything but a front
for the fundamentalists?

I guess they fooled me, big time. I was going by what they say, not by
what others on an internet group say.

Research them. You'll find that they are in fact an advocacy group.

Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is god,
time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the intelligent
designer might be. Now maybe some people like those school board
folks in Dover would like to use it to further their own purposes
but that's not basic ID from what I've read.

Uh huh. Once they've sold intelligent design then they can go on to
sell
the designer. One step at a time.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? They're salesmen, they're trying
to
sell something. They need to get the marks to accept one piece of the
pitch before they can get them to accept the next part.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they
are the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of
dissent. What are they afraid of?

What leads you to believe that "evolutionists" are _afraid_ of
anything? If the "intelligent design" people can present real evidence
that their hypothesis explains the observed data better than the
evolutionary model then the scientific community will happily embrace
it.

Happily? I don't think that's been the case. They don't want to look at
the data.

What "data"? The issue is not data, the issue is interpretation.

They already have their inquiring minds made up.

Sez you.

Did you hear
what happened to Richard Sternberg when he published an article on ID?

He stuck his neck out and took the heat. By mentioning him you defeat
your own argument.

He was retaliated against for simply publishing an article.

Now let's see, the people who allegedly "retaliated" were government
agencies, not the scientific community as a whole, as well as an advocacy
group no more credible than the ones that you seem to support. Please
understand--bureaucrats are not scientists, but they do tend to make life
miserable for the scientists who work for them.

He didn't
even agree with the article but thought it important to put it out
there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5007508
Sure seems to me that the Darwinists want to shut down debate.


What do the punctuated equilibriumists want? By continuing to use the
term "Darwinism" you demonstrate that you don't know a whole Hell of a
lot about
evolutionary models. The Darwinian model is one of several.


Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings.

You're welcome.

When I say "Darwinism" I'm
talking about the idea that life changes over time through natural
selection creating new species.

While that is one aspect of the Darwinian model it is not the distinguishing
characteristic--it is shared by a number of models other than the
Darwinian.

You asked, "What do the punctuated equilibriumists want?" Well, can
only make a guess. Could it be that they realize that Darwin's original
theory had problems?

Well, of _course_ Darwin's model had problems. It was the first cut based
on limited data, and yes, several models have been proposed to address
those shortcomings.

Like the vast amounts of time it would take for
natural selection to produce the huge number of species.

Who other than advocates of "intelligent design" has suggested that this is
a "problem"?

Then too, it
fails to explain the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record.

This is one of the points that punctuated equilibrium addresses.

My guess
is that the punctuated equillibrimists wanted to save the theory by
proposing the idea that a lizard could give birth to a chicken. g

To say that the advocates of punctuated equilibrium want to "save the
theory" is like saying that Einstein wanted to "save" Newtonian mechanics.
When new data comes along you adjust the model as required until you reach
a point where some other model works better.

I wonder, do the punctuated equillibrimists face censorship and
judicial decrees if they try to promote their theory?

I have heard of no instance in which an advocate of punctuated equilibrium
or any other current biological model attempted to force its teaching by
legislation. The "intelligent design" advocates face judicial decrees
because they are trying to use legislation force the schools to incorporate
their teachings in advance of their general acceptance. All laws are
subject to judicial scrutiny. If you don't want to deal with judicial
decrees then don't try to use the law to force your views on other people.
It is as simple as that. As for censorship, who has been censored and
when?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

No, ID does not go into religion, religion goes into ID.

Well that could be the case.


According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific
theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and
the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Yes, that is their propaganda. Or are you laboring under the
misconception that the "Discovery Institute" is anything but a front
for the fundamentalists?

I guess they fooled me, big time. I was going by what they say, not by
what others on an internet group say.

Research them. You'll find that they are in fact an advocacy group.

Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is god,
time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the intelligent
designer might be. Now maybe some people like those school board
folks in Dover would like to use it to further their own purposes
but that's not basic ID from what I've read.

Uh huh. Once they've sold intelligent design then they can go on to
sell
the designer. One step at a time.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? They're salesmen, they're trying
to
sell something. They need to get the marks to accept one piece of the
pitch before they can get them to accept the next part.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they
are the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of
dissent. What are they afraid of?

What leads you to believe that "evolutionists" are _afraid_ of
anything? If the "intelligent design" people can present real evidence
that their hypothesis explains the observed data better than the
evolutionary model then the scientific community will happily embrace
it.

Happily? I don't think that's been the case. They don't want to look at
the data.

What "data"? The issue is not data, the issue is interpretation.

They already have their inquiring minds made up.

Sez you.

Did you hear
what happened to Richard Sternberg when he published an article on ID?

He stuck his neck out and took the heat. By mentioning him you defeat
your own argument.

He was retaliated against for simply publishing an article.

Now let's see, the people who allegedly "retaliated" were government
agencies, not the scientific community as a whole, as well as an advocacy
group no more credible than the ones that you seem to support. Please
understand--bureaucrats are not scientists, but they do tend to make life
miserable for the scientists who work for them.

He didn't
even agree with the article but thought it important to put it out
there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5007508
Sure seems to me that the Darwinists want to shut down debate.


What do the punctuated equilibriumists want? By continuing to use the
term "Darwinism" you demonstrate that you don't know a whole Hell of a
lot about
evolutionary models. The Darwinian model is one of several.


Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings.

You're welcome.

When I say "Darwinism" I'm
talking about the idea that life changes over time through natural
selection creating new species.

While that is one aspect of the Darwinian model it is not the distinguishing
characteristic--it is shared by a number of models other than the
Darwinian.

You asked, "What do the punctuated equilibriumists want?" Well, can
only make a guess. Could it be that they realize that Darwin's original
theory had problems?

Well, of _course_ Darwin's model had problems. It was the first cut based
on limited data, and yes, several models have been proposed to address
those shortcomings.

Like the vast amounts of time it would take for
natural selection to produce the huge number of species.

Who other than advocates of "intelligent design" has suggested that this is
a "problem"?

Then too, it
fails to explain the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record.

This is one of the points that punctuated equilibrium addresses.

My guess
is that the punctuated equillibrimists wanted to save the theory by
proposing the idea that a lizard could give birth to a chicken. g

To say that the advocates of punctuated equilibrium want to "save the
theory" is like saying that Einstein wanted to "save" Newtonian mechanics.
When new data comes along you adjust the model as required until you reach
a point where some other model works better.

I wonder, do the punctuated equillibrimists face censorship and
judicial decrees if they try to promote their theory?

I have heard of no instance in which an advocate of punctuated equilibrium
or any other current biological model attempted to force its teaching by
legislation. The "intelligent design" advocates face judicial decrees
because they are trying to use legislation force the schools to incorporate
their teachings in advance of their general acceptance. All laws are
subject to judicial scrutiny. If you don't want to deal with judicial
decrees then don't try to use the law to force your views on other people.
It is as simple as that. As for censorship, who has been censored and
when?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Since we're talking about theories, I think that students should be
exposed to different ideas and allowed to make up their own minds.
Otherwise it's just indoctrination.

Happy New Year

Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

No, ID does not go into religion, religion goes into ID.

Well that could be the case.


According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific
theory that holds there are certain features of living systems
and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent
cause."

Yes, that is their propaganda. Or are you laboring under the
misconception that the "Discovery Institute" is anything but a
front for the fundamentalists?

I guess they fooled me, big time. I was going by what they say, not
by what others on an internet group say.

Research them. You'll find that they are in fact an advocacy group.

Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is
god, time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the
intelligent designer might be. Now maybe some people like those
school board folks in Dover would like to use it to further their
own purposes but that's not basic ID from what I've read.

Uh huh. Once they've sold intelligent design then they can go on
to sell
the designer. One step at a time.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? They're salesmen, they're
trying to
sell something. They need to get the marks to accept one piece of the
pitch before they can get them to accept the next part.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of
free speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism.
Now they are the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed
censorship of dissent. What are they afraid of?

What leads you to believe that "evolutionists" are _afraid_ of
anything? If the "intelligent design" people can present real
evidence that their hypothesis explains the observed data better
than the evolutionary model then the scientific community will
happily embrace it.

Happily? I don't think that's been the case. They don't want to look
at the data.

What "data"? The issue is not data, the issue is interpretation.

They already have their inquiring minds made up.

Sez you.

Did you hear
what happened to Richard Sternberg when he published an article on
ID?

He stuck his neck out and took the heat. By mentioning him you defeat
your own argument.

He was retaliated against for simply publishing an article.

Now let's see, the people who allegedly "retaliated" were government
agencies, not the scientific community as a whole, as well as an
advocacy
group no more credible than the ones that you seem to support. Please
understand--bureaucrats are not scientists, but they do tend to make
life miserable for the scientists who work for them.

He didn't
even agree with the article but thought it important to put it out
there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5007508
Sure seems to me that the Darwinists want to shut down debate.


What do the punctuated equilibriumists want? By continuing to use the
term "Darwinism" you demonstrate that you don't know a whole Hell of a
lot about
evolutionary models. The Darwinian model is one of several.


Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings.

You're welcome.

When I say "Darwinism" I'm
talking about the idea that life changes over time through natural
selection creating new species.

While that is one aspect of the Darwinian model it is not the
distinguishing characteristic--it is shared by a number of models other
than the Darwinian.

You asked, "What do the punctuated equilibriumists want?" Well, can
only make a guess. Could it be that they realize that Darwin's original
theory had problems?

Well, of _course_ Darwin's model had problems. It was the first cut
based on limited data, and yes, several models have been proposed to
address those shortcomings.

Like the vast amounts of time it would take for
natural selection to produce the huge number of species.

Who other than advocates of "intelligent design" has suggested that this
is a "problem"?

Then too, it
fails to explain the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record.

This is one of the points that punctuated equilibrium addresses.

My guess
is that the punctuated equillibrimists wanted to save the theory by
proposing the idea that a lizard could give birth to a chicken. g

To say that the advocates of punctuated equilibrium want to "save the
theory" is like saying that Einstein wanted to "save" Newtonian
mechanics. When new data comes along you adjust the model as required
until you reach a point where some other model works better.

I wonder, do the punctuated equillibrimists face censorship and
judicial decrees if they try to promote their theory?

I have heard of no instance in which an advocate of punctuated
equilibrium or any other current biological model attempted to force its
teaching by
legislation. The "intelligent design" advocates face judicial decrees
because they are trying to use legislation force the schools to
incorporate
their teachings in advance of their general acceptance. All laws are
subject to judicial scrutiny. If you don't want to deal with judicial
decrees then don't try to use the law to force your views on other
people.
It is as simple as that. As for censorship, who has been censored and
when?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Since we're talking about theories, I think that students should be
exposed to different ideas and allowed to make up their own minds.
Otherwise it's just indoctrination.

If intelligent design is ever elevated from a hypothesis to a theory, then
I'm sure that it will be included in standard biology curricula. That is a
long way from happening though. Perhaps its advocates should work on that.
Perhaps though they should _first_ learn the difference between
"hypothesis" and "theory". Perhaps you should as well.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call
it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite
legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration --
not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:


He doesn't really want any citations. Guys like him only ask for them so
they can say your arguments are not valid. If you actually furnished the
citations he would then change the subject, call you names, or would say
they don't apply. Requests for citiations by right wingers is what they do
when they don't know that what you are saying is true or anything about it.
Then when you ask them for citiations they cut and paste a raft of right
wing authored articles and blog ****. It's what you do when you can't argue
worth a **** and have no position that's supported by facts. They do it
every time.

Hawke

J. Clarke wrote:
If intelligent design is ever elevated from a hypothesis to a theory, then
I'm sure that it will be included in standard biology curricula. That is a
long way from happening though. Perhaps its advocates should work on that.
Perhaps though they should _first_ learn the difference between
"hypothesis" and "theory". Perhaps you should as well.


Well golly, Sgt. Carter, ain't that swell. Now I know the difference.
Too bad that ID will never be elevated to the status of "theory" until
YOU say so.

Best wishes in the new year.
GW

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call
it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite
legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration --
not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:


He doesn't really want any citations. Guys like him only ask for them so
they can say your arguments are not valid.

Oh, I'm well aware of Gunner's tactics. He used to be much worse. He'd toss
out five or ten lengthy quotes, some of which he apparently hadn't bothered
to read g, and then defy you to contradict them. But Jim and I did
contradict some, wasting a lot of our time in the process, so Gunner has
lightened up on that stuff.

However, I knew what he was getting at here, and he knew what I had, so that
round ended pretty quickly.

I see that Bush had some comment today about this, which he said a few years
ago:

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a
wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're
talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court
order before we do so."

....he was only only talking about certain wiretaps. What he said today is:
"I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot
Act. This is different from the N.S.A. program."

That one ought to rate the Weasel of the Week award.

--
Ed Huntress

Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
If intelligent design is ever elevated from a hypothesis to a theory,
then
I'm sure that it will be included in standard biology curricula. That is
a
long way from happening though. Perhaps its advocates should work on
that. Perhaps though they should _first_ learn the difference between
"hypothesis" and "theory". Perhaps you should as well.


Well golly, Sgt. Carter, ain't that swell. Now I know the difference.

I'm happy for you. But you clearly do not.

Too bad that ID will never be elevated to the status of "theory" until
YOU say so.

Sorry, but I don't have that power. If the advocates of intelligent design
can show that their model explains the observed data better than the
standard models, or explains it as well but is either computationally
simpler or has greater predictive power, then it will over a period of a
few decades become accepted as a theory. Until then it remains an
alternative hypothesis.

But the fact that you are now resorting to sarcasm rather than trying to
understand the points being made tells me that you aren't really interested
in learning anything. And this, more than anything else, is the reason
that advocates of intelligent design make no progress--you refuse to learn.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Gus wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
If intelligent design is ever elevated from a hypothesis to a theory,
then
I'm sure that it will be included in standard biology curricula. That is
a
long way from happening though. Perhaps its advocates should work on
that. Perhaps though they should _first_ learn the difference between
"hypothesis" and "theory". Perhaps you should as well.


Well golly, Sgt. Carter, ain't that swell. Now I know the difference.

I'm happy for you. But you clearly do not.

Too bad that ID will never be elevated to the status of "theory" until
YOU say so.

Sorry, but I don't have that power. If the advocates of intelligent design
can show that their model explains the observed data better than the
standard models, or explains it as well but is either computationally
simpler or has greater predictive power, then it will over a period of a
few decades become accepted as a theory. Until then it remains an
alternative hypothesis.

But the fact that you are now resorting to sarcasm rather than trying to
understand the points being made tells me that you aren't really interested
in learning anything. And this, more than anything else, is the reason
that advocates of intelligent design make no progress--you refuse to learn.


I've noticed that you do well presenting your facts but then you
can't resist insulting or talking down to the person. I'm not sure
that's a favorable atmosphere for learning.

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:52:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

This is different from the N.S.A. program.

Or the Army program or the Pentagon one or the FBI ones ...
Greenpeace, PETA, Catholic Workers, the Quakers, probably
the ACLU, etc. ....
--
Clirr

In article , Gunner Asch says...

And here I thought it was a lack-of-faith based belief system....

Nope. They believe that there is no God, are quite sure of it. When
lots of evidence points otherwise. So without any way to prove
it..they go by faith.

This boils down to an occams razor thing. You use the simplest
explaination that fits the facts. Supernatural beings are not
simple, nor are they needed to explain the world as seen.

To put it another way gunner, I am absolutely sure that there's
a blue china teapot orbiting pluto right now. It's my faith.
If you don't belive it then you are a heretic and must be burned
at the stake.

There's no way to prove it.
There's no way to disprove it.
Its existence in no way matters in explaining how things work.

But you still need to be punished for not believing.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 2 Jan 2006 07:31:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner Asch says...

And here I thought it was a lack-of-faith based belief system....

Nope. They believe that there is no God, are quite sure of it. When
lots of evidence points otherwise. So without any way to prove
it..they go by faith.

This boils down to an occams razor thing. You use the simplest
explaination that fits the facts. Supernatural beings are not
simple, nor are they needed to explain the world as seen.

To put it another way gunner, I am absolutely sure that there's
a blue china teapot orbiting pluto right now. It's my faith.
If you don't belive it then you are a heretic and must be burned
at the stake.

There's no way to prove it.
There's no way to disprove it.
Its existence in no way matters in explaining how things work.

But you still need to be punished for not believing.

Jim

Who wants to punish you for not believing?
Actually..I see far more folks wanting to punish you FOR beliving than
otherwise.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article , Gunner says...

Who wants to punish you for not believing?

The fundies. When they try to muscle their personal beliefs
into public schools, that's punishment enough.

Historically this has been true. See the spanish inquistion,
or gallileo's imprisonment.

Any non-believers will be rooted out and made to recant.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 2 Jan 2006 12:34:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Who wants to punish you for not believing?

The fundies. When they try to muscle their personal beliefs
into public schools, that's punishment enough.

Historically this has been true. See the spanish inquistion,
or gallileo's imprisonment.

Any non-believers will be rooted out and made to recant.

Jim


Odd. these days..its those non believers that are trying to gut
believers. Cyclic huh?

Now about that "in god we trust" thats been on money for how many
years again..thats causing so much ruckus?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On 2 Jan 2006 12:34:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Who wants to punish you for not believing?

The fundies. When they try to muscle their personal beliefs
into public schools, that's punishment enough.

All that demonstrates is that some believers are rude and maybe
self-righteous people. That's not a situation that has not existed among
self-selected groups throughout humanity's existence. The trick is not
to let them get the power to enforce their personal agendas on others.

It's OK for teachers to teach Religion: It's not OK to force students to
subscribe to their beliefs about faith _or_ science. They may, however,
describe the differences in how each realm operates.


Historically this has been true. See the spanish inquistion,
or gallileo's imprisonment.

Any non-believers will be rooted out and made to recant.

Jim


Odd. these days..its those non believers that are trying to gut
believers. Cyclic huh?

All that demonstrates is that some non-believers are rude and maybe
self-righteous people. That's not a situation that has not existed among
self-selected groups throughout humanity's existence. The trick is not
to let them get the power to enforce their personal agendas on others.

It's OK for teachers to teach Science: It's not OK to force students to
subscribe to their beliefs about faith _or_ science. they may, however,
describe the differences in how each realm operates.


Now about that "in god we trust" thats been on money for how many
years again..thats causing so much ruckus?

asideIt's a motto, not a statement of immutable scientific truth. :P

I think there's a good case to be made that Christianity (And Islam)
made modern science possible in that each taught that the world and how
it works was rational, understandable, and knowable. But I'll leave it
better historical theologians than me to make it.
/aside

WARNING: The below is written by one who is a devout Christian!

The way I see it so far is that the resistance to teaching Intelligent
Design in schools _as Science_ is because ID does not admit of
verification or falsification and is, therefor, not scientific by the
current standard definitions of Science.

No one can honestly be against the teaching of religion _as religion_ in
public schools so long as such is a study of all religions and/or a
study of religiosity per se. Any religion that can't stand up to
comparison with another has little to recommend it anyway and any good
administration would carefully watch for proselytizing in the classroom.

Religion can even be studied scientifically: It may not be taught as the
immutable truth of _one_ religion over any other.

A teacher in a public school may even use reading the Bible as an aid or
as an assignment _so long as_ it is not so used to the exclusion of
other religious texts or the writings of Agnostics and/or Atheists and
is not taught as somehow better that all the others. I.E. This you
_must_ believe. (Well, in my days in Catholic School, it was so taught,
but those weren't government funded institutions.

There are Comparative Religion courses in many state funded schools and
colleges and in privately funded seminaries.

The First Amendment restriction on making laws respecting freedom of
religion or the free exercise thereof is not an injunction against being
religious or learning about religion(s). It is an injunction against
favoring any one religion to the detriment of another. There can be no
legal religious "test," for example, required for government employment
or office holding. If _any_ religion can have tax-exempt status, _all_
religions must be able to have such status, even non-religions or
Atheism. (If a group of atheists wanted to have a church or the
equivalent, it could make a good case for having the same status as any
other belief system.

The realms of Religion and Science, or more properly Faith and Science,
are separate ways of thinking about the world and whatever may be
outside or beyond it.

What Science rejects is the improbable, that which is not subject to
rigorous proof. Science rejects that precisely because it cannot be
scientifically useful to aid understanding _in a way_ that can be
repeated in order to be tested or to predict how things will work if an
idea is an accurate statement about how the physical world operates.

Science is necessarily conservative and only accepts what can be
demonstrated or what accurately predicts experimental outcomes. The
Theory of Evolution and some cosmological thought does that currently.
If any theory fails to do that sometimes, it suggests that theory is
either incomplete, wrong, or inadequately understood. Physics is full of
such situations. Biology is too. None the less, what we have is the best
we can presently do as finite intelligences.

Any infinite or transcendent intelligence presently is not known by and
perhaps cannot be known by finite minds _in any rigorously provable
way_.

Science does not discard whole theories if some small part fails: It
tries first to refine the theories. If that fails, then the whole theory
may be discarded, but discarding knowledge before it is proved
_completely_ wrong is a radical step, not to be taken lightly.

We gotta do the best we can with what we have.

Scientists conceive of theories of the unknown in the hope those things
can someday be known and understood -- and proven.

Religious believe in things revealed in the hope those things can
someday be proven. But many of those things are not provable. Thus,
those revelations have no place in rigorous scientific inquiry.

If either found strong evidence of ID, as opposed to strong opinions,
that evidence should be considered by scientists as rigorously as any
other evidence -- for repeatability, predictive usefulness, and logical
consistency -- as any other evidence, lest scientists be guilty of what
they accuse others of. But extraordinary claims require extarordinary
evidence. Such evidence is currently not forthcoming: It could appear in
the future. (If God wants it to, that is.

I know Physicists, Biologists, etc. who are very religious -- in church
and out, but not in the laboratory. Those people do not inject their
unprovable beliefs into their scientific inquiry.

And neither should our teachers.

(OK. I yield the soapbox to the distinguished gentleman (or woman) from
the Whatever of Whatever.)

In article , John
Husvar says...

The way I see it so far is that the resistance to teaching Intelligent
Design in schools _as Science_ is because ID does not admit of
verification or falsification and is, therefor, not scientific by the
current standard definitions of Science.

The other issue of course being that Creationism is a specific
narrow religious sect pushing their agenda into the public
schools. When they "teach to the controversy" what they try to
do is pretend that science and all religions disagree on some
fundamental level. That's not true, it is only the creationists
religion that runs aground on evolution. Hence their need to
eliminate it.

I know Physicists, Biologists, etc. who are very religious -- in church
and out, but not in the laboratory. Those people do not inject their
unprovable beliefs into their scientific inquiry.

And neither should our teachers.

Amen. Those scientists understand that faith and science can exist
together. Each has its own realm. They don't suggest teaching
science in church, and they don't want god taught in science class.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================