BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 07:32 AM

Evidence? Google "Pius XII and the Roman razzia":

According to Phayer, there is no doubt that "Pius XII knew of the plan to murder Roman Jews".[5] Pius XII's under-secretaries of state Giovanni Montini and Domenico Tardini first learned of the planned deporations in mid-September 1943.[6] Specifically, the Vatican learned of a "telegram from Berlin instructing the SS in Rome to seize the city's Jews" several weeks before the razzia began.[7]
By October, "various members of the German military and diplomatic corps" were attempting to prevent the planned deportation of Rome's Jews.[7] Ernst von Weizsäcker took over from bishop Alois Hudal the task of compiling a comprehensive list of the properties of the pope in Rome and sending hundreds of "letters of protection" to those properties, guaranteeing them extraterritorial status.[7] However, von Weizsäcker delegated the task of actually warning the Roman Jewry to his assistant Albrecht von Kassel, who encountered great difficulty due to the prevailing opinion, generated by former Fascist Jews Dante Almansi and Ugo Foa, that there was "no cause for alarm".[8] In any case, according to Phayer, "Pope Pius gave them no warning".[8] In the end, very few Jews "availed themselves of opportunities to hide" before October 16.[8] Contrary to many non-contemporary accounts, historian Susan Zuccotti finds no evidence that "the populations of convents and monasteries surged before the fateful day".[8]


Father Père Marie-Benoît
According to Zuccotti, not only did Pius XII not aid the efforts of Father Père Marie-Benoît (later honored as Righteous among the Nations for his efforts to save Jews), he actively discouraged his work.[9] Father Benoît was called to Rome in June 1943, where he had no success in enlisting the aid of the pontiff to help Jews escape Italian-occupied France.[10] With respect to Benoît's actions during the razzia, Zuccotti writes, "far from claiming receipt of material aid from Vatican officials, Benedetto never even wrote that they encouraged him".[11] For example, Msgr. Angelo dell'Acqua, an official in the Vatican Secretariat of State, wrote on November 20, 1943 that he had repeatedly told Benoît to "use the maximum prudence", lamenting that Benoît had "not wished to listen to the humble advice given to him".[11] Vatican officials actively attempted to "subdue" the efforts of Benoît and others, cautioning them against even meeting with Jews, with "whom it would be better to speak less".[11] When Benoît asked Monitini for a letter of recommendation he needed to provide false documents to Jews, "he received little but a reprimand".[12]

Evidence? Google "Ratlines WW2":

According to Phayer, Pius XII "preferred to see fascist war criminals on board ships sailing to the New World rather than seeing them rotting in POW camps in zonal Germany".[7] Unlike the Vatican emigration operation in Italy, centered on Vatican City, the ratlines of Spain, although "fostered by the Vatican" were relatively independent of the hierarchy of the Vatican Emigration Bureau.[8]

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 07:53 AM

So let's see if I have this right, Gustiferissimous One ex Sanitorium. You want me to watch a seven-part series about a medieval piece of cloth containing an image that is not of Jesus. Any chance of a quick, potted version of what you suppose it tells us? I have chunes to learn for tonight, you see...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:13 AM

BTW, have ya'll heard that women have the ability to not become pregnant from the sperm of a rapist???

Yup, right there on the inter net so it must be true...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM

Thread drift, Bobster. Nevertheless...conceiving an embryo by being raped is a "gift from G-d." I don't know what *process* led us, or at least one goofball to that *conclusion.* But I suppose that to use scientific inquiry to get there, one would have to demonstrate prove the existance of "G-d" or there can be no clear testable hypothesis. But G-d is a concept that relies on faith to "exist." Therefore, one cannot use the scientific method to prove or disprove his conclusion. Isn't that convenient? It is both a war on science AND a war on women! A lovely GOP twofer!! How DO they do it, folks??

And sadly, you did *not* hear it here first.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 12:26 PM

and hopefully moving away from the slanging match...
the featured article on creation.com today is about the amount of similarity between humans and chimps.dawkins in the blind watchmaker aserted dna correlation as 99 percent and studies seemed to confirm similar figures .now however it has emerged that data had been filtered and selectively used to arrive at higher figures.with the previously ommitted data restored the figure is 81-87 percent.there is a lot of technical discussion in the article but i think i've conveyed the gist of it.
"alternative to science" no need-just honest,unbiased enquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 12:58 PM

Think of it this way, the Richard Mourdock way:

A rape victim is pregnant. She didn't intend to conceive a baby. The rapist didn't intend to conceive a baby. So Who intended to conceive the baby?

Any questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 01:17 PM

Any credible sources (as opposed to Creation.com) for that little snippet, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 02:14 PM

I'm afraid to have to tell you, pete, that this stuff is way beyond you. Popular science mags and snippets for news bulletins demand gross over-simplification. Those percentage figures are not what you will hear evolutionary scientists talking to each other about. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, pete, but whether it's "99%" or "85%" doesn't make a smidgeon of difference to the fact that the two species are evolutionarily linked. Anyway, you should, as good scientists always do, delight in the fact that new evidence can come to light to keep the debate fresh. Here, stop bothering us with yer creationist claptrap, embrace the truth for a change and get yer teeth into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 04:42 PM

I know I'm wasting my time here, talking to a brainwashed person, but science is not some unalterable, unchangeable, unchallengeable, bloody great huge monolith like your religion, pete. Science is not unassailable dogma and a scientist who presents evidence to challenge a current model of reality is not some sort of heretic (well not generally, anyway - I'm sure it happens - but it shouldn't). Fresh evidence can often alter the perspective on that particular model of reality, revealing new, previously unseen, features and facets. Truly great scientists,like Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger and Darwin, have revealed to us models of reality which no-one before them had even anticipated. And other great scientists may come along in the future and overthrow those models. But that's COOL!! When new evidence comes along it doesn't mean that science must be 'wrong' and we all have to start believing that it wus God wot did it!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack out and about
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:10 PM

"alternative to science" no need-just honest,unbiased enquiry

OK, I'm going to take offence at this, and here's why.

I am a researcher specialising in palaeontology and this idea that the wok I do is anything else than honest or unbiased is slanderous. My objective is the truth, and I happen to know my fellow workers in this field are exactly the same.

I have zero financial or any other vested interest in my research; I do it because I want to know how and why things are why they are, and palaeontology is one way to do this.

To suggest that anyone is dishonest or a liar because they do the work, do the learning, reading and donkey work is not only rude, it's bloody ignorant. I don't take someone else's word for anything, I find out for myself and I trust my co workers to tell me the truth.

In fact, I would think the people that write the shite on creation.com can't hold a candle to those who do honest, unbiased research.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:14 PM

You didn't watch it all the way...so I think getting an opinion from an 'un-observer' is about as scientific as listening to someone just making shit up which you are..'guessing and hoping' otherwise known as a symptom of morons....(true story).....and I don't feel it necessary to give much credence to someone who cannot be taken seriously. The comedy/tragedy of it all is that YOU do!!!

...along with others.

Truly Yours,..(like a wart)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:34 PM

Have another vat of whatever you're supping. I promise I will watch it all the way if you give me good reason to watch a seven-part series about a cloth that does not have the image of Jaysus on it. I really do need a good reason, you know. I like to do tunes and not watch telly. Tell me: do you still think the shroud is a pic of Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM

*****************************NEWS ALERT*****************************

If Romney is elected he will ground the entire U.S. Navy while a
re-evaluation is conducted on the roundness of the Earth...

***************************Details @ 11******************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 08:09 AM

""If you really want to discuss it seriously...scientifically, let me know. Your rants are too frantically psychotic to take seriously."

Says the man who has yet to post a coherent comment on this forum.

Really Goofus, what are you smoking?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 08:49 AM

******************************NEWS ALERT****************************

If elected, Romney says he will close down NIH (National Institute of Health) saying that curing disease is short sighted and that the folks who work there are "hacks and quacks" with "welfare mentalities"...

****************************Details @ 11*****************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 09:37 AM

Hey, Sanity, just answer me this one question, will you?

Do...you...really...think...that...the...Turin...shroud...bears...the...image...of...Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 11:13 AM

Nobody interested in the Shroud can afford not to read Joe Nickell's investigative "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 11:18 AM

I am not the least bit 'interested' in the pesky thing; but I would be interested in a response from GfS to Steve's perfectly reasonable & pertinent question about it.

Answer! Answer!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 11:59 AM

I am the only one disappointed when a discussion nominally about alternatives to science turns into one solely about science versus religion, which then becomes one about rationality?

I think if people look at themselves carefully, they will find that the majority of their personal decisions are *not* scientific or rational: in fact I would hazard that for most people the big financial decisions of their lives (what house they buy, what car they buy, and so on) are almost entirely emotional. Of course, they may then invent rational explanations for it afterwards (and there is quite a lot of research on that) but as a rule the rational component of such decisions is pretty minor.

That seems to me a much more interesting area for discussion; pity we choose to go over the well-trodden ground instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM

First of all, you should see the documentary yourselves...and consider the evidence put forth. I'm not the one to tell you WHAT to think...and in science, by definition as well, the 'impartial observer' gathers all the data an comes to either a conclusion or at least a theory.

What is really pathetic, is when someone who claims to be 'scientific', blunders into a subject, armed with only an unlearned opinion, and tries to shoot down any other possibilities....without even looking into it, because it might step on the toes of his biased, unlearned opinion!!!

Now this all started when I posted a quote from Beethoven, who responded to a question when he was asked about the source of his ability to compose the music he was composing....and the alleged harmonica player has a pissy-fit, and attempts to shoot down Beethoven's answer because it doesn't fit into his small minded bias.

Then a scientist (I posted the link from Yahoo that same day as the story broke)who had died and was revived, reports of what he experienced and saw.... which was consistent to a degree of what Beethoven said...and again our resident alleged harmonica player says the scientist is all wrong. Hmmm......well one thing that can be said about this particular alleged harmonica player, is he certainly is equipped to play a harmonica...he is a blow hard with a big mouth!

"BS: Below the Line... Musicians or not???
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 07:57 PM

Does that mean that a kid playing in a school band is not a musician? Come to think of it, you are probably right. Although a great many musicians get their start there.

The aim of anyone playing any instrument should be to put themselves at the service of the music. "My instrument" is the harmonica."

Yeah, what the hell did Beethoven know about music???
Yeah, what the hell did scientist know about observing his own experience??
...Personally, I think I'll stick with Beethoven's answer as to what his inspiration was, than some big mouth blow hard telling Beethoven that he has it all wrong!!!

As to the video link, judge for yourself. It really is a fascinating watch done by scientists, who are NOT attempting to promote a 'religious' stance, one way or the other.
Only non-scientifically minded, biased blow-hards, would see it any other way.

BTW, the documentary starts off with a physicist from Sandia Labs, who was just curious....not a bogus church or phony religion.

Take a peek yourselves...the report made international news!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 01:16 PM

Yeah, but isn't emotionalism the dumbest "alternative to science"?   

It boils down to "if it feels good, do it, and if it sounds good, believe it."

Not the best way to stay well, solvent, or out of jail.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM

.........but 'politically correct!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 02:03 PM

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 02:44 PM

Yeah, but isn't emotionalism the dumbest "alternative to science"?   
I assume this follows on from my comment.

The answer is, it depends. As I said way way way way back, I am a rationalist at heart and it's how I earn my living. As a strategy for long term development as a group, it takes some beating. But the simple fact is that not only is it not how we make many day to day choices, when it comes to fight-or-flight, or simply things like second by second driving decisions, it would probably kill us quite quickly if we took the time to carry out a proper rational analysis. And that is also true for some long term decisions: most voting decisions are not based on a rational analysis of the choices before us. For example, leaving a certain US election to one side, here in the UK we are being asked to vote for police commissioners for the first time on Nov 15th. To date I have recieved exactly zero leaflets, emails, texts, whatever from any of the candidates. In short I am being provided with no information whatever on which to make a rational decision.

So when I think about alternatives to science, I don't mean we drop scientific approaches: I mean we augment them as best we can with other approaches in other situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 04:35 PM

Guffs does a great big quote with my name at the head of it. In fact, just one line of that quote is by me!!

I'm more than happy to embrace Beethoven's view on his inspirations. He was a god when it came to composing music but an ordinary chap (with more than his fair share of hassles), much given to making overblown remarks (one of his endearing qualities for those of us who revere the man) in daily life. The "scientist" who "came back to life" was no such thing in either regard. He said he was "scientifically certain" that his stricken brain couldn't, etc. etc. I can't think of a sound scientist who would say he was "scientifically certain" of a particular event that only he witnessed. I can think of many a scoundrel who would say such a thing or equivalent, though. St Bernadette, for example. I did try to illustrate this to you with my own experience of ball lightning, remember? I am pretty certain of what I saw but I'm not going to write a popular science article about it, let alone expect you to believe it and castigate you if you don't. Yer man has no evidence for his experience, only his own witness. That simply won't do.

As for that damned shroud, I'm fully in the science camp I'm afraid. Unless Jesus was a thirteenth century Turk, it ain't him on that piece of cloth as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I have it on good authority that Jesus's arse didn't look anything like that. Something Mary Magdalen said...I'll dig out that quote if I can find it...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 04:40 PM

The big mouth blow hard has spoken....it must be true.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 04:52 PM

What must be true?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM

Well SOMETHING must be true, Steve ... but none of us are too sure what. Guest,GfS might know but he doesn't seem to be able to tell us ... possibly ... you big harmonica player you!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 07:24 PM

Oi, Shimrod, please get it "scientifically certain": I'm only an alleged harmonica player! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 07:29 PM

****************************NEWS ALERT****************************

Global warming, according to the Republican Party, is a coincidence
that has nothing to do with man burning everything he can burn...

***************************Details @ 11****************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 07:57 PM

It sounds to me, DMcG, that when all else fails, you recommend intuition.

I'd say that intuition is scarcely different from guessing. I wouldn't rely on intuition unless I had to. (Though intuition is obviously useful for suggesting lines of research.)

When I voted in the U.S. yesterday, I was expected to vote yes or no on five complicated, proposed city ordinances. I voted on the three whose meaning was clear, and I abstained on the other two. I could have used my intuition, but it would have been irresponsible to cast a vote one way or the other on something I didn't think I understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 02:36 AM

Steve Shaw: "What must be true?"

Well said!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 04:17 AM

It sounds to me, DMcG, that when all else fails, you recommend intuition.
It's not so much I recommend it: when all else fails, we don't have very much else to go with.

But my main point is that for most of our decisions, even when when we have the opportunity to take rational decisions, we frequently don't. Let's take a typical decision: buying a new guitar.

The first stage is typically rational: can I afford it?
The next stage is rarely rational: do I actually need it? If a truck has run over your only other one and you have a gig to perform at, yes, you do need it in a rational sense. But the majority of the time, no, you do not need it in any rational sense. But you go off to buy one on what are I would claim emotional grounds.

Then in the store you try three or four and decide which one you want based on its appearence and sound: aestetic attributes, not scientific.

So my point really is that even those who are hard-line 'science is all' types actually run much of their lives based on non-rational decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 04:36 AM

I stand corrected Steve - you big alleged harmonica player, you!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 05:24 AM

When I voted in the U.S. yesterday, I was expected to vote yes or no on five complicated, proposed city ordinances. I voted on the three whose meaning was clear, and I abstained on the other two. I could have used my intuition, but it would have been irresponsible to cast a vote one way or the other on something I didn't think I understood.

I understand your point, Shimrod, and maybe would have done the same myself. But even an abstention is a decision which alters the chances of one side or the other gaining ground, so I don't think it automatically follows that in such circumstances an abstention is always the right action. Many company boards, for example, have a convention that the chair only votes when there is a tie on a vote, and then always votes for whatever constitutes 'no change'. So maybe the "responsible" thing to do in such circumstances it to vote for no change. But that's not a "rational" decision, in the sense of following a series of logical steps from premises.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 05:52 AM

I think you've got me mixed up with Guest, Lighter, DMcG. I happen to live in the UK and am not elligible to vote on city ordinances in the US!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 06:03 AM

Oops! My apologies, one and all!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 08:43 AM

Apology accepted.

Voting "no" would have been the equivalent in this case of "no change." Abstention means "I am not able to take a reasoned position."

Presumably many people voted yes or no without understanding what they were voting for, on the principle that if the City Council recommended it, it must be a good idea (or a bad idea). These proposals, by the way, were nonpartisan in that they weren't associated with any particular party: voters were simply being asked to ratify or thwart actions the Council itself had voted to take.

Of course we often make decisions based on feelings, intuition, wild guesses, etc. But I wouldn't consider those processes "alternatives to science" because science is a methodical and ultimately self-correcting way of understanding the world. Intuition, wild guesses, etc., aren't either methodical or part of a viable approach to general understanding. (They can be made systematic, however, though not very useful to understanding, by being combined into a mythology.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 12:58 PM

Hey Steve...just a 'good-time out'

Just some good input for harp players..enjoy

Saw this guy play once...thought I'd post him

Figured you already heard Little Walter, Musslewhite, Mayall, and Jerry Portnoy..

Enjoy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 02:54 PM

Very nice. Actually, I allegedly play traditional Irish, Northumberland and Scottish tunes. I'll sell you, or anybody else, Jerry Portnoy's harmonica masterclass set for 25 quid plus whatever it costs me to post it. Pristine condition. Only played the first of the three CDs once. Don't tongue-block so it's no use to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 03:59 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 04:44 PM

"".and again our resident alleged harmonica player says the scientist is all wrong. Hmmm......well one thing that can be said about this particular alleged harmonica player, is he certainly is equipped to play a harmonica...he is a blow hard with a big mouth!""

If you are going to quote posters, it would be as well to stick to quoting what they actually said, in context, and in its entirety.

Steve did not say that the man was wrong. He said (correctly) that there was no evidence that what he experienced was anything other than a dream. In fact there could be no evidence, since none of his assertions are testable.

I would go a step further, and say that "scientist" is a misnomer for anybody who believes that he can tell the difference between a remembered dream and an actual experience while unconscious, and that this ability constitutes scientific evidence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 05:33 PM

Well, only if the scientist, maintains the ability to remain an 'impartial observer' and is collecting data to process. The link's article didn't go into any other information that he gathered before that would have caused him to incorporate his experiences into his findings or reason to take closer notice.

That's one thing that stuck out in the link I posted, that got people pissy. The researches in the video, seemed to maintain a level of observation, rather than to prove or disprove a predisposed position.

You gotta' stay open to the possibilities.....it only closes when it gets into a political mindset....or in other ways of diminished openness to collect data...and often a political wing will distort science to further an agenda....built on bad science, but money to be made and power to control, of course!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 06:54 PM

You see, GfS, it works like this. You say to me something like ... oh, I don't know ... "elephants think in French". I might say, "that's very interesting, GfS, what makes you think that?" Hopefully, you will then provide me with some evidence and, depending on the strength of that evidence, I might come to believe the same thing.

But if your evidence is unconvincing or you're merely asserting that elephants think in French because you dreamed it, or read it on the Internet, I am perfectly entitled to be sceptical. This is NOT the same as having a 'closed mind'. If you want me to believe something that you believe then 'the ball is in your court' - you then have a responsibility to convince me by providing me with credible evidence. You can call me all the names you like but it won't change my position.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 07:29 PM

*****************************NEWS ALERT*****************************

If elected, Romney will order all mention of "evolution" removed from
all public school text books...

****************************Details @ 11****************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 08:14 PM

> You can call me all the names you like but it won't change my position.

[Irony ahead:]

So you admit you have a closed mind!

[End irony]

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 09:36 PM

Never occurred to him...mind closed for repairs.
..and did I call you a name? ..or did you just identify with a generalization?

I called Steve a name...but it was only an accurate description of his attacks against having an open mind..but I don't recall doing that with you...but if I did, sorry....but if the shoe fits, I guess ya' gotta wear it, huh?
..and 'Lighter'.....that was a sharp observation.

Regards to All Those With Functioning Minds,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 09:38 PM

..to all others: Best Wishes!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:11 PM

"A rape victim is pregnant. She didn't intend to conceive a baby. The rapist didn't intend to conceive a baby. So Who intended to conceive the baby?"

Wrong way to even phrase a question, Lighter. Even the idea that 'choice' was involved assumes too much... but maybe you knew that.

I just saw this weekend, at a friend's house, a book by Stephen J. Gould called The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002) . It runs over 1200 pages...and he had a number of OTHER books dealing with the issues. Anyone who has doubts about evolution should browse a few... then read a few... then THINK about it for several years.

It is not an easy thing to see all the interrelated ideas and history and data involved. To just say,"Oh, I don't need all that, I believe "X" is simply taking the easy way out! Science, and kind of truth science offers, is amazingly complex... but once into it a certain distance, it becomes evident that it (science) is necessary to TRULY understand who & what we and the universe are all about....honest.... would I mislead you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:13 PM

I yam speechluss, is wot I yam!