Even his fellow Republicans are telling Gawwge to shut his damn fool mouth
over this one.If they teach this ***** in science classes, the US really
is no better than Afghanistan under the Taliban.. fucking ignorant,
superstitious savages.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/08/
god_vs_darwin_no_contest/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Op-ed+columns
''Intelligent design" boils down to the claim sarcastically summed up by
aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg on his blog,
Transterrestrial Musings: ''I'm not smart enough to figure out how this
structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer." Simberg,
a political conservative, concludes that this argument ''doesn't belong in a
science classroom, except as an example of what's not science."
The notion that the teaching of evolution is some kind of left-wing plot is,
to put it plainly, absurd. In addition to the people mentioned above,
opponents of teaching ''intelligent design" as an alternative scientific
viewpoint include John H. Marburger III, director of the White House's
Office of Science and Technology Policy. Earlier this year at the annual
conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger
responded to an audience question by stating point-blank that ''intelligent
design is not a scientific theory" or even a scientific topic.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
10 Aug 2005 05:54:36 PM |
|
|
'Intelligent design" is term for the conceptually challenged!
However even scientific fact is likely to be updated every now and
then.
Getting better handles.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
10 Aug 2005 08:15:29 PM |
|
|
<leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:1123714476.059045.72470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
'Intelligent design" is term for the conceptually challenged!
However even scientific fact is likely to be updated every now and
then.
Getting better handles.
LB
And since science does not rule out God I am perfectly happy with science
and christianity.
Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 06:17:14 AM |
|
|
Barbarossa wrote:
<leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:1123714476.059045.72470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
'Intelligent design" is term for the conceptually challenged!
However even scientific fact is likely to be updated every now and
then.
Getting better handles.
LB
And since science does not rule out God I am perfectly happy with science
and christianity.
Regards,
Barbarossa
In the 1400s, 'everyone' knew that the world was flat, then someone sailed
across the Atlantic and brought back loot, and the world became round. In
the late 1800s, 'everyone' knew that Man couldn't fly, then a pair of bicycle
mechanics made the wings. In the '40s, 'everyone' knew that the sound
barrier was a brick wall in the sky that nothing could penetrate, then Bell
Aviation put enough thrust behind the brick and Chuck Yeager opened the door
to the stars. Everything you thought you knew is wrong... isn't science
wonderful? Comparing science to religion is like comparing helium to lead.
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 06:26:54 AM |
|
|
"Charly the *****" <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:42FB33B7.CC3D2F49@worldnet.att.net...
Barbarossa wrote:
<leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:1123714476.059045.72470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
'Intelligent design" is term for the conceptually challenged!
However even scientific fact is likely to be updated every now and
then.
Getting better handles.
LB
And since science does not rule out God I am perfectly happy with
science
and christianity.
Regards,
Barbarossa
In the 1400s, 'everyone' knew that the world was flat,
Not true at all. A popular myth though
then someone sailed
across the Atlantic and brought back loot, and the world became round. In
the late 1800s, 'everyone' knew that Man couldn't fly
Again, not true. Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, had been sketching flying
machines400 years or so previously, and of course Otto Lillienthal was
proving it on a daily basis with his gliders-
, then a pair of bicycle mechanics made the wings.
Actually, their contribution was powered flight.
In the '40s, 'everyone' knew that the sound
barrier was a brick wall in the sky that nothing could penetrate,
Again, not true. What was known was that prop engines will never, ever
produce anthing like the necessary thrust. After all, bullets had been
making it through the sound barrier for years before that.
then Bell Aviation put enough thrust behind the brick and Chuck Yeager
opened the door
to the stars.
Everything you thought you knew is wrong... isn't science
wonderful? Comparing science to religion is like comparing helium to
lead.
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 06:45:45 AM |
|
|
Tw said;-
"Not true at all. A popular myth though ..."
That's a rather comprehensive, and accurate rebuttal of wild
generalisations, tw. A rather nice thing to read as well....I applaud
you..;)
I find it impossible to grasp the concept of anyone NOT believing in
the natural laws of evolution. It is not a 'theory' anymore. It has
stood the tests required of all scientific papers...and passed.
Much as the Einstein concept regarding relativity, that too has entered
the world of fact, no longer being simply a theory.
The 'facts' of religion however..whatever God it may be...have been
shown as less and less pertinant and reliable, to the extent that
no-one who is 'questioning' by nature, gives any credence to the myth.
All religion has left to offer, is the idea of 'blind faith'. That
notion lies within the realms of the weak-minded and the insane.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 07:28:34 PM |
|
|
"Werewolfy" <thegrimreaper10@lycos.com> schreef in bericht
news:1123760745.474093.34910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tw said;-
"Not true at all. A popular myth though ..."
That's a rather comprehensive, and accurate rebuttal of wild
generalisations, tw. A rather nice thing to read as well....I applaud
you..;)
I find it impossible to grasp the concept of anyone NOT believing in
the natural laws of evolution. It is not a 'theory' anymore. It has
stood the tests required of all scientific papers...and passed.
Much as the Einstein concept regarding relativity, that too has entered
the world of fact, no longer being simply a theory.
The 'facts' of religion however..whatever God it may be...have been
shown as less and less pertinant and reliable, to the extent that
no-one who is 'questioning' by nature, gives any credence to the myth.
All religion has left to offer, is the idea of 'blind faith'. That
notion lies within the realms of the weak-minded and the insane.
Look at how the Bible warns for false prophets. Look at how we rapidly
go to Armageddon (oilpeak and destroyed climate) and it all makes sense
to me, regardless of any evolution theories. The evolution theory is just
a theory and not a solid fact.
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 07:56:09 PM |
|
|
Barbarossa wrote:
The evolution theory is just a theory and not a solid fact.
The above indicates a truly basic misunderstanding of the process of
science.
Theory:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena."
[From the Yahoo Hougton-Mifflin Dictionary]
A fact is a piece of information. A theory is devised to explain
facts. Thus, a theory never becomes a fact and vice versa.
I assume that your use of the word "theory" comes from the popular
press, which consistently misuses the word. A scientist would use the
word "hypothesis" in that context.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 09:47:13 PM |
|
|
goozlefotz wrote:
Barbarossa wrote:
The evolution theory is just a theory and not a solid fact.
The above indicates a truly basic misunderstanding of the process of
science.
Theory:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena."
[From the Yahoo Hougton-Mifflin Dictionary]
A fact is a piece of information. A theory is devised to explain
facts. Thus, a theory never becomes a fact and vice versa.
I assume that your use of the word "theory" comes from the popular
press, which consistently misuses the word. A scientist would use the
word "hypothesis" in that context.
Here is a topic where you won't get an argument from tw.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 06:53:06 AM |
|
|
"Werewolfy" <thegrimreaper10@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1123760745.474093.34910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tw said;-
"Not true at all. A popular myth though ..."
That's a rather comprehensive, and accurate rebuttal of wild
generalisations, tw. A rather nice thing to read as well....I applaud
you..;)
Why thank you!
I find it impossible to grasp the concept of anyone NOT believing in
the natural laws of evolution. It is not a 'theory' anymore. It has
stood the tests required of all scientific papers...and passed.
Much as the Einstein concept regarding relativity, that too has entered
the world of fact, no longer being simply a theory.
Well, it is still atheory in scientific terms, but as far as they layman is
concerned it is done and dusted and "fact" as you so rightly say. To be fair
to C the B, I think that's what he is saying too.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 07:25:51 AM |
|
|
All religion has left to offer, is the idea of 'blind faith'. That
notion lies within the realms of the weak-minded and the insane.
Not quite it does give purpose to community and most do have codes to
try and live by, some downright weird, but hey if they are Happy why
not?
Though many do defy credibility, being the chosen is a dead giveaway.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 07:37:02 AM |
|
|
LB wrote;-
"Not quite it does give purpose to community and most do have codes to
try and live by, some downright weird, but hey if they are Happy why
not?
Though many do defy credibility, being the chosen is a dead giveaway."
Yep, true enough there Leigh. As a code of conduct the system was
fine..necessary even. Sadly the conflicts between 'codes' rather
belittles the entire business, and it's value to Society.
Your post is true enough though....
Ricky
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mondo" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 11:33:24 AM |
|
|
As far as I am concerned *EVERYTHING* is a theory. How you view it depends
on what your basic premis about reality is. If you believe reality is a set
of 'physical objects' then you would need a theory like evolution to explain
things.
On the other hand, another way of viewing reality is to regard it as the of
all 'experiences' then things take on a totally differnt meaning. The
question becomes... "What does it 'feel like' to believe in that?"
How the Universe is to someone is essentially what they believe. I think
what a person *believes* is just as valid a version of 'reality'. It's a
very subtle shift in viewpoint and most people are not able to grasp it.
mondo
"Werewolfy" <thegrimreaper10@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1123760745.474093.34910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tw said;-
"Not true at all. A popular myth though ..."
That's a rather comprehensive, and accurate rebuttal of wild
generalisations, tw. A rather nice thing to read as well....I applaud
you..;)
I find it impossible to grasp the concept of anyone NOT believing in
the natural laws of evolution. It is not a 'theory' anymore. It has
stood the tests required of all scientific papers...and passed.
Much as the Einstein concept regarding relativity, that too has entered
the world of fact, no longer being simply a theory.
The 'facts' of religion however..whatever God it may be...have been
shown as less and less pertinant and reliable, to the extent that
no-one who is 'questioning' by nature, gives any credence to the myth.
All religion has left to offer, is the idea of 'blind faith'. That
notion lies within the realms of the weak-minded and the insane.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
11 Aug 2005 11:37:05 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
Again, not true. What was known was that prop engines will never, ever
produce anthing like the necessary thrust. After all, bullets had been
making it through the sound barrier for years before that.
It wasn't a matter of thrust. The tips of propellers go faster than
the plane itself and the propellers tended to desintigrate [sp] when
the tips reached the speed of sound.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 03:39:23 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123778225.154365.243170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Again, not true. What was known was that prop engines will never, ever
produce anthing like the necessary thrust. After all, bullets had been
making it through the sound barrier for years before that.
It wasn't a matter of thrust.
Wrong, I'm afraid that's exactly what it was an issue of. As speed (and
altitude) increases. a prop become less and less efficient and causes more
and more drag, especially when you get large bits of the prop blade
exceeding the speed of sound. You end up having to pile more and more power
in for miniscule gains in thrust.
The tips of propellers go faster than
the plane itself
Which is always the case with a prop plane, no matter the speed.
and the propellers tended to desintigrate [sp] when
the tips reached the speed of sound.
Provably false. The T6 Harvard was built in the 1930's, had a top speed of
about 300 mph and had a distinctive engine sound due to the tips of its prop
blades being supersonic at cruising revs. The TU 95 Bear (a russian bomber
and recce aircraft) had prop tips which exceeded the speed of sound too.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/propellor
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 03:55:19 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
Wrong, I'm afraid that's exactly what it was an issue of. As speed (and
altitude) increases. a prop become less and less efficient and causes more
and more drag, especially when you get large bits of the prop blade
exceeding the speed of sound. You end up having to pile more and more power
in for miniscule gains in thrust.
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 04:24:23 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123836919.294989.191410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Wrong, I'm afraid that's exactly what it was an issue of. As speed (and
altitude) increases. a prop become less and less efficient and causes
more
and more drag, especially when you get large bits of the prop blade
exceeding the speed of sound. You end up having to pile more and more
power
in for miniscule gains in thrust.
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
Good lad ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 06:59:32 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
Good lad ;-)
I was serious; there was no need for that insult.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 07:14:25 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123847972.750821.295220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
Good lad ;-)
I was serious; there was no need for that insult.
Insult? I assure you none was intended..
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 07:26:14 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123847972.750821.295220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
Good lad ;-)
I was serious; there was no need for that insult.
Insult? I assure you none was intended..
So, you pat me on the head like a child and say no insult was intended!
I will never defer to you again, you can bet on it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 07:35:15 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123849574.915471.46470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123847972.750821.295220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to
your
expertise...
Good lad ;-)
I was serious; there was no need for that insult.
Insult? I assure you none was intended..
So, you pat me on the head like a child and say no insult was intended!
You seem to have missed the winking smiley afterwards.
I will never defer to you again, you can bet on it!
Well, it's your funeral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 03:44:55 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
Well, it's your funeral.
No, it is just a fact of life to deal with people whose social skills
are below average. I just expected better. How foolish of me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 06:44:40 PM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123879495.217988.12220@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Well, it's your funeral.
No, it is just a fact of life to deal with people whose social skills
are below average. I just expected better. How foolish of me.
Our tw is nothing if not cocky. See his "Well well well I was right all
along (again)" thread.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
15 Aug 2005 02:25:30 AM |
|
|
Jane skrev:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123879495.217988.12220@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Well, it's your funeral.
No, it is just a fact of life to deal with people whose social skills
are below average. I just expected better. How foolish of me.
Our tw is nothing if not cocky.
Only when I'm right.
See his "Well well well I was right all
along (again)" thread.
That was a statement of fact. I'm sorry if you find it cocky..
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 04:16:01 PM |
|
|
goozlefotz wrote:
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
Good lad ;-)
I was serious; there was no need for that insult.
Did you miss the winky? Means that it's said in lighthearted fun - IE
not to be taken seriously.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 06:10:42 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Did you miss the winky? Means that it's said in lighthearted fun - IE
not to be taken seriously.
Woods
I certainly did not miss it. It accentuated his condescending attitude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 06:12:36 PM |
|
|
When people want to insult someone without accepting responsibility for
it, they always say "Oh, it was just a joke".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 09:45:13 PM |
|
|
goozlefotz wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Did you miss the winky? Means that it's said in lighthearted fun - IE
not to be taken seriously.
Woods
I certainly did not miss it. It accentuated his condescending attitude.
There is only one "tw" trait that exceeds his intellect, and that is
his ego. Graciousness does not seem to be one of his strong points,
though he can on occasion bring himself to be gracious. All in all,
he's not a bad guy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
15 Aug 2005 02:40:20 AM |
|
|
Thank you very much Steven, You're a gentleman.
p.s. My modesty FAR outweighs both my egotism and my intellect ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 05:16:32 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123836919.294989.191410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Wrong, I'm afraid that's exactly what it was an issue of. As speed (and
altitude) increases. a prop become less and less efficient and causes
more
and more drag, especially when you get large bits of the prop blade
exceeding the speed of sound. You end up having to pile more and more
power
in for miniscule gains in thrust.
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
I'm no expert, but I like to read and (try to) understand those who are:
<1119361368.995601.283310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: God vs Darwin - No contest |
12 Aug 2005 03:04:03 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123836919.294989.191410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Wrong, I'm afraid that's exactly what it was an issue of. As speed (and
altitude) increases. a prop become less and less efficient and causes
more
and more drag, especially when you get large bits of the prop blade
exceeding the speed of sound. You end up having to pile more and more
power
in for miniscule gains in thrust.
It sounds like you know more about it than I do, so I defer to your
expertise...
I'm no expert, but I like to read and (try to) understand those who are:
<1119361368.995601.283310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
If you're reeeallllly interested, I can dig out the Airframe Book and type in
the three chapters of math that deal with propellors. Then you'll KNOW what
keeps the elephant in the air. The real problem with propellors is that as the
blade passes the .95 Mach velocity, you get a normal shockwave that forms
perpendicular to the relative wind and this puts the trailing edge of the blade
in stall, and you lose pumping effeciency. Now if you can get the whole blade
moving at greater than Mach 1.3 or so, you can take adventage of the oblique
shockwave and actually get more out than you put in, but Bhob, they're LOUD.
And that's what thrust is all about; moving large masses of air from the front
to the back at a high rate of speed. A large diameter prop turning slowly is
more effecient than a small diameter prop turning at just under or beyond Mach.
That's why most prop piston engines for aircraft are set up to have a 3000 rpm
redline; they're tractor motors. They're usually undersquare and make peak
torque at about 1500 rpm. It's a whole nother kind of high performance.
Expert, n. X, the unknown factor; Spurt, a drip under pressure; Expert, an
unknown drip under pressure.
Charly
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
