1101
Marc Draco
To research, or not to research? The question here now is: who''s the idiot?
26/06/2006 23:13:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
m_cowan32 wrote:
->
> Some interesting stuff these last 3 weeks.
> Strange thing about light and its speed - now that really would
set
> Schrödinger's cat among the pigeons! Maybe Setterfield was right
> after all:
>
> www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2196225%2C00.html
Sorry - the link needs an extra C between the 2 and the 1. When you
open it you'll see a reference to the journal "Science". As I said, I
haven't had time to explore this yet. But I'm watching with great
interest!
Ah yes, that missing C (ironic that - since C is the constant
representing the speed of light). Quite how anyone could be so numb as
to post a URL without using copy and paste (or a service like TinyURL)
evades me.
The %2Cs allude to the commas Fox uses.
In this typically unabashed and arrogant post, you pose the question
"Maybe Setterfield was right after all"
Yet if you had actually READ the story, you would have discovered that
(much to our amusement and I trust your great embarrassment) that this
is not the case. This has nothing to do with Setterfield's bunk and
just exposes the development of science - by demonstrating something
experimentally that which has already been predicted.
Pity that you "haven't had time to explore this yet." Because if you
had (spent 5 minutes reading the article you're citing) you would have
realised that your assumption like so many others is wrong. Not just a
little bit wrong, but wholly, categorically and insanely wrong. The
very last quote in the article, even if you had just skimmed it reads:
A spokesperson at the university's
communications
department added this: "Everything that defines the pulse that enters,
also defines the pulse that exits. But the energy of the light does not
travel faster than light."
Heaven help one of your students if they behave like this in the
classroom. Sounds like Schrödinger's cat is going to remain within its
paradox and the pigeons can sleep safe in their nests.
In future Nick, try to comment on stuff you actually know something
about, will ya - or just answer the questions Lenny and others have put
to you (time and time again.)
Ain't peer reviewing a bitch?
1102
Marc Draco
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 23:57:00
Na. It's Nick alright, John. We've all had a good chuckle at the link -
even when it does work (and it needed correction) the actual article
only negates what Nick suggests. Must be rough being wrong all the time.
John Germain wrote:
>I think this is spoofed at Cow-Pokes addy. (no-one is this potty...)
>
>He can't believe that he's not going to be brought up before the NUT. When his
'n Hers
>Pensions go tits up, penury is a sharp focuser of what remains of the mind...
>
>Blah, BLAH, & THE LINK DOESN'T work...
>
>Good start.
>
>What exams are still running, Nick?
>
>Which Board?
>
>
>
>
>
1103
ukantic
The Takeover Continues.
27/06/2006 00:57:00
Minutes of the Education and Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Panel
Consultation on the Proposal to Close Dartmouth High School
Prior to the Establishment of an Academy on the School Site,
and Consultation on the Establishment of an Academy on the
School Site
Further to Minute No. 11/06 (22nd March, 2006), it was reported that
on 30th January, 2006 the Cabinet Member for Schools and Lifelong
Learning had approved proposals to carry out initial consultation on
the closure of Dartmouth High School in order to convert Dartmouth
High School into a Design and Enterprise Academy, effective from
1st September, 2008.
<snip>
that in order to address the concerns regarding the
Christian Evangelical beliefs of the Sponsors of the
proposed Academy (the Paynes) and their belief in
Creationism, officers be requested to make
arrangements for the Panel to meet with the Paynes to
discuss:-
*
where and how creationism will feature in the
curriculum;
*
how creationism will affect the school ethos;
*
how the school will celebrate and support the
beliefs of pupils with other faiths and will respect
pupils' rights to no beliefs and their right to `opt
out' of daily worship sessions;
HTML of PDF
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:HPoyeCotRoQJ:cmis.sandwell.gov.uk/CMISWebPu\
blic/Binary.ashx%3FDocument%3D18337+creationism+%22the+Paynes&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=cln\
k&cd=1
http://tinyurl.com/hbvnv
Life's a bitch, then the creationists get your kids.
Alan.
1104
Timothy Chase
Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 04:03:00
In the FOX News thread, Marc Draco pointed out the super-luminal
wave-propogation associated with the lead part of a light wave --
which is made possible by a negative index of refraction. I mentioned
that a negative index of refraction would make an invisibility shield
possible (essentially, by bending light around an object), and that I
would look for the original article on this. Unfortunately, it is too
hot and I got only three hours sleep, so I may or may not have found
the original article, but I did find two technical articles. The
first appears original, the second is not quite at the same level, but
it has the virtue of being fairly readable.
For those who want them, enjoy...
Invisible plasmonic meta-materials through impedance matching to vacuum
J. W. Lee, M. A. Seo, J. Y. Sohn, Y. H. Ahn, D. S. Kim, S. C. Jeoung,
Ch. Lienau, and Q-Han Park
Optics Express, Vol 13. Issue 26, Dec. 2005, pp.10681-10687
http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?uri=OE-13-26-10681
Optical Conformal Mapping and Dielectric Invisibility Devices
Ulf Leonhardt
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North
Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9SS, Scotland
(Dated: April 18, 2006)
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:a\
rXiv.org:physics/0602092
1105
oeditor
Re: The Takeover Continues.
27/06/2006 10:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> that in order to address the concerns regarding the
> Christian Evangelical beliefs of the Sponsors of the
> proposed Academy (the Paynes) and their belief in
> Creationism, officers be requested to make
> arrangements for the Panel to meet with the Paynes to
> discuss:-
Any idea wo these people are?
Brian
1106
danger_to_shipping
Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 11:43:00
Haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if I'm just repeating
stuff, but it's also claimed that it's possible for the *group*
velocity of radio waves to exceed the speed of light. A German
university a few years back sent a transmission of some Mozart music
at faster than light speeds this way.
Can't remember the group involved. They chose the Mozart music clip
specifically to counter the argument that information was not being
transmitted.
Pete
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> In the FOX News thread, Marc Draco pointed out the super-luminal
> wave-propogation associated with the lead part of a light wave --
> which is made possible by a negative index of refraction. I mentioned
> that a negative index of refraction would make an invisibility shield
> possible (essentially, by bending light around an object), and that I
> would look for the original article on this. Unfortunately, it is too
> hot and I got only three hours sleep, so I may or may not have found
> the original article, but I did find two technical articles. The
> first appears original, the second is not quite at the same level, but
> it has the virtue of being fairly readable.
>
> For those who want them, enjoy...
>
> Invisible plasmonic meta-materials through impedance matching to vacuum
> J. W. Lee, M. A. Seo, J. Y. Sohn, Y. H. Ahn, D. S. Kim, S. C. Jeoung,
> Ch. Lienau, and Q-Han Park
> Optics Express, Vol 13. Issue 26, Dec. 2005, pp.10681-10687
> http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?uri=OE-13-26-10681
>
> Optical Conformal Mapping and Dielectric Invisibility Devices
> Ulf Leonhardt
> School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North
> Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9SS, Scotland
> (Dated: April 18, 2006)
>
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:a\
rXiv.org:physics/0602092
>
1107
danger_to_shipping
Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 11:38:00
Nick
Given the latest research which seems to suggest that being gay has a
biological origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
Does this affect the bible's condemnation of homosexuality? Why would
God make people gay if He didn't want them to be that way?
Pete
1108
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 12:35:00
On 27/06/06, danger_to_shipping <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
>
> Haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if I'm just repeating
> stuff, but it's also claimed that it's possible for the *group*
> velocity of radio waves to exceed the speed of light. A German
> university a few years back sent a transmission of some Mozart music
> at faster than light speeds this way.
>
> Can't remember the group involved. They chose the Mozart music clip
> specifically to counter the argument that information was not being
> transmitted.
You are right -- it is the group velocity which exceeds the speed of
light. The lead velocity is what carries the information and
therefore must be no faster than the speed of light for causality to
be preserved. I should have seen this, but I also probably should
have waited to send the above email out until after I had some sleep.
1109
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 14:25:00
On 27/06/06, danger_to_shipping <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
>
> Nick
>
> Given the latest research which seems to suggest that being gay has a
> biological origin:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
>
> Does this affect the bible's condemnation of homosexuality? Why would
> God make people gay if He didn't want them to be that way?
Well, as you have probably noticed, this is has become a subject of
some debate in the United States. There is considerable debate over
what the original Greek meant, the mores that it was based upon -- at
least in the Episcopal church. I remember recently one of the church
leaders arguing that the original Koine Greek was referring to
something else as a sin -- the old lying down with the young -- which
sounds like paedophilia to me. There is also the argument that it was
based upon the view that men were superior to women, and therefore it
some form of affront to their manhood to act as a woman in bed. I am
not sure how well this will go over, at least now in the United
States.
A large part of how Bush got out the vote in 2004 was by appealing to
bigotry, having the constitutional amendments in a number of southern
states against marriage between people of the same sex. But then that
would have been relying upon the only 25% of those who voted in the
election. The other 25% were taken in by the terror alerts -- which
were coming in whenever Bush's popularity waned. 10% of gays voted
for Bush because they thought he would be better able to deal with
terrorism. It felt like Moira and I were living in 1932 Germany with
the kind of manipulation that was going on. The results came in on
her birthday.
I personally think that in terms of the evolution of Christianity, the
important thing will be for them to distance themselves and their
parishioners from a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.
Currently 40% of churches adhere to a literal interpretation of
Genesis as a matter of doctrine, but I am not sure the parishioners
have heard about this.
Among those churches which take a pro-science approach and accept
evolution the doctrinal view is that Genesis is to be understood
allegorically as "speaking in the timeless language of a poetry which
can speak to all people of the relationship between God and Man so
that it may transform souls." Then church theologians will emphasize
the creativity of God, and insofar as they accept evolution, suggest
that it is perhaps an expression of God's creativity.
I strongly suspect that if church-goers can accept this, then they
will be much more open to the scientific discoveries involving human
sexuality. Much of the Old Testament involves God commanding people
to engage in savagery which would run against the grain of any modern
people who haven't been entirely brainwashed by Fundamentalist
churches. But obviously it isn't something that I can get involved in
-- my concern is with the defense of science, particularly
evolutionary biology -- and seeing that Fundamentalism doesn't achieve
political power.
A theocratic United States would be one of the gravest dangers this
world has ever faced. As far as I am concerned, everything else is
secondary, except perhaps the individual. As for the differences in
worldviews, philosophic or religious, I have decided that personally
the best position for me is one of Olympian detachment -- so long as
we aren't speaking of Fundamentalism. To let people make their own
choices and think for themselves. If they wish to try and change
one-another's views, that's fine. But that's just me, my own personal
stand.
1110
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 14:37:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Neat.
But can we also conclude that Setterfield remains an partly-educated,
er, [insert appropriate derogation] with an axe to grind?
Timothy Chase wrote:
->
On 27/06/06, danger_to_shipping <psh@hearty.plus.com>
wrote:
>
> Haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if I'm just repeating
> stuff, but it's also claimed that it's possible for the *group*
> velocity of radio waves to exceed the speed of light. A German
> university a few years back sent a transmission of some Mozart
music
> at faster than light speeds this way.
>
> Can't remember the group involved. They chose the Mozart music clip
> specifically to counter the argument that information was not being
> transmitted.
You are right -- it is the group velocity which exceeds the speed of
light. The lead velocity is what carries the information and
therefore must be no faster than the speed of light for causality to
be preserved. I should have seen this, but I also probably should
have waited to send the above email out until after I had some sleep.
1111
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 16:04:00
--- danger_to_shipping <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
> Nick
>
> Given the latest research which seems to suggest
> that being gay has a
> biological origin:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
>
> Does this affect the bible's condemnation of
> homosexuality? Why would
> God make people gay if He didn't want them to be
> that way?
>
> Pete
Hi Pete, Interesting piece of research, albeit in its
very early stages yet: "...the question of mechanism
remains.". And no support for a so-called "gay gene"
as the Stonewall spokesman seems to imply.
Homosexual orientation (if this is what you mean by
BEING gay) is not a sin nor is "temptation" generally,
but any sexual (genital) relationship/practice outside
heterosexual marriage is sinful according to both Old
and New Testaments (and other religious books too -
Orthodox Jewish and Muslim teaching would also condemn
it).
The Christian understanding is that God does not "make
people gay" - all sin is a consequence of the Fall
(man's first disobedience), and this can include that
caused by chemicals (eg drug-taking during pregnancy)
or even antibodies, if further research confirms that
hypothesis. However People still have to make choices
about their behaviour whatever their chemical makeup.
Despite what Dan Brown says about Mary Magdalene(!),
Jesus Christ did not put into practice any temptation
He experienced - which must have included sexual -
because He never married. (He is actually engaged to
another at this moment!). God promises to give us the
power to resist temptation. More controversially, 1st
Corinthians refers to EX-homosexual offenders who have
become Christians. Many evangelicals would argue that
this means that orientation change is possible with
God's help, but the text doesn't say so specifically.
In answer to your previous posts, I am not ashamed to
be called a fundamentalist - this word needs freeing
from the normative "baggage" it carries - because I
believe the foundational truths of the Christian faith
revealed in Scripture. However I am not a "literalist"
and I don't know anyone who is. Some of the Bible is
clearly poetry, whilst the wisdom literature uses much
hyperbole to reinforce its message. The Psalms were
meant to be sung rather than merely read. Jesus used
parabolic language and not a little humour! Genre and
context are vital in proper Bible exegesis.
However I do believe that the whole text itself is
inspired by God, and hence inerrant as given in its
original languages. It is accurate historically,
including Genesis 1-11 (which is clearly not written
as myth), and - yes - scientifically. But it is not a
science book as such - it's much bigger than that! I
don't consult the Bible when I want to learn more
about Chemistry or even Geology, but I do believe
there are no proven scientific "mistakes" or
"contradictions" in it. Rather, it does contain some
remarkable statements which modern science has only
confirmed recently. I think I highlighted a link to
these in an earlier post, and I have faith that they
provide evidence of divine inspiration. I don't
criticise the Bible as a piece of "literature" (even
though I studied at F.R.Leavis' old college!): instead
I find that it criticises me!
And yes, it isn't "Christian" to gloat -
apologies(although I don't think I'm the worst
offender in this Group!). I guess late Sunday evening
after the footie and a few glasses of wine isn't a
wonderful time to be objective.
Hope you have a clearer picture now.
Regards, Nick.
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1112
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 16:55:00
On 27/06/06, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- danger_to_shipping <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > Nick
> >
> > Given the latest research which seems to suggest
> > that being gay has a
> > biological origin:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
> >
> > Does this affect the bible's condemnation of
> > homosexuality? Why would
> > God make people gay if He didn't want them to be
> > that way?
> >
> > Pete
>
>
> Hi Pete, Interesting piece of research, albeit in its
> very early stages yet: "...the question of mechanism
> remains.". And no support for a so-called "gay gene"
> as the Stonewall spokesman seems to imply.
...
Sorry -- I didn't realize you were talking to that Nick.
;-)
Research I have seen is that there may be roughly 40 genes "involved"
in sexual orientation. However, it also appears to be partly
environmental: specific hormones which the developing embryo is
exposed to, and likewise we have seen research coming out to the
effect that the order of birth is a fairly significant factor -- which
may be responsible for hormonal differences. Research is also showing
a variety of differences between the brains of heterosexual and
homosexual males. Research into female sexuality has been less
in-depth, but I have seen it receiving more focus within the past few
years. Of course, much of the information I have just given is from
studies within the past couple of years. I have not had the chance to
look at the most recent studies.
Incidentally, given my understanding of human nature, limited though
it may be, when all sex becomes forbidden, there exists a human
tendency to regard all sex as equally forbidden.
1113
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 17:34:00
--- Timothy Chase <timothychase@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/06/06, danger_to_shipping
> <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Given the latest research which seems to suggest
> that being gay has a
> > biological origin:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
> >
> > Does this affect the bible's condemnation of
> homosexuality? Why would
> > God make people gay if He didn't want them to be
> that way?
>
> Well, as you have probably noticed, this is has
> become a subject of
> some debate in the United States. There is
> considerable debate over
> what the original Greek meant, the mores that it was
> based upon -- at
> least in the Episcopal church. I remember recently
> one of the church
> leaders arguing that the original Koine Greek was
> referring to
> something else as a sin -- the old lying down with
> the young -- which
> sounds like paedophilia to me. There is also the
> argument that it was
> based upon the view that men were superior to women,
> and therefore it
> some form of affront to their manhood to act as a
> woman in bed. I am
> not sure how well this will go over, at least now in
> the United
> States.
The Greek word "arsenokoitai" simply means "man in
bed" and does not refer in any way to children. The
Bible is clear too that woman is not inferior to man
in the eyes of God (who made both in His image) though
they may have different roles (obvious from Biology!).
The pseudo-psychological argument cited is complete
speculation. To argue thus against the clear Biblical
teaching against homosexual practice is to invent
one's own religion, which sadly seems to be happening
in parts of the ECUSA (I speak as a fellow-Anglican).
Unfortunately it isn't Christianity!
> A large part of how Bush got out the vote in 2004
> was by appealing to
> bigotry, having the constitutional amendments in a
> number of southern
> states against marriage between people of the same
> sex. But then that
> would have been relying upon the only 25% of those
> who voted in the
> election. The other 25% were taken in by the terror
> alerts -- which
> were coming in whenever Bush's popularity waned.
> 10% of gays voted
> for Bush because they thought he would be better
> able to deal with
> terrorism. It felt like Moira and I were living in
> 1932 Germany with
> the kind of manipulation that was going on. The
> results came in on
> her birthday.
You married a Moira too - great!!
I used the term: "fascist atheists" in a previous post
which attracted considerable flank - sorry, flak! I
don't suspect either word is true of yourself, but -
in view of your analogy - now would be a good time to
give an apologetic for it. By "fascist" I meant the
intolerant view that only one opinion is valid, and
that other opinions must be suppressed by force -
including the force of verbal/written protest to
school Boards/unions etc. I think you can see the
irony of a statement like: "Don't let fascists speak".
Sadly this Group (and DC) contains people who, because
they are atheists and/or secularists, wish to suppress
any mention of a Designer in science classes. Do you
think they'd settle for that? Or is their ultimate aim
to rid education (life generally?) of any mention of
God, and particularly of Jesus Christ (except as a
swearword of course)? I think considerable paranoia
exists in this whole area, as well as an unhealthy
dose of "conspiracy theory" mania. If my own ID/YEC
position is so absurd, then don't you think the
students will figure it out for themselves? What are
you afraid of? They deserve the chance to consider
other views. To deny them that is fascism.
> I personally think that in terms of the evolution of
> Christianity,
Not my favourite phrase in your post! The biblical
revelation of God is that He is immutable. If and when
He (or the Bible text) changes, then it will be OK for
Christianity to change according to the political
correctness/scientific orthodoxy of the day.
> the important thing will be for them to distance
> themselves and their
> parishioners from a strictly literal interpretation
> of the Bible.
> Currently 40% of churches adhere to a literal
> interpretation of
> Genesis as a matter of doctrine, but I am not sure
> the parishioners
> have heard about this.
> Among those churches which take a pro-science
> approach and accept
> evolution the doctrinal view is that Genesis is to
> be understood
> allegorically as "speaking in the timeless language
> of a poetry which
> can speak to all people of the relationship between
> God and Man so
> that it may transform souls." Then church
> theologians will emphasize
> the creativity of God, and insofar as they accept
> evolution, suggest
> that it is perhaps an expression of God's
> creativity.
There is a world of difference between "creativity" -
the first revealed attribute of God - and mutability.
>
> I strongly suspect that if church-goers can accept
> this, then they
> will be much more open to the scientific discoveries
> involving human
> sexuality. Much of the Old Testament involves God
> commanding people
> to engage in savagery which would run against the
> grain of any modern
> people who haven't been entirely brainwashed by
> Fundamentalist churches
"Much" - really? The relatively few incidents you
refer to are so obviously outweighed by the revelation
of God's LOVE for His sinful creation, which pervades
both OT and NT. There are reasons for the acts that
seem abhorrent to us but BS probably isn't the forum
for dicussing such (feel free to e-mail me directly).
I'm not sure what you mean by "modern people" - it
seems to me that we're not evolving morally: rather
the opposite!
> But obviously it isn't something that I
> can get involved in
> -- my concern is with the defense of science,
> particularly
> evolutionary biology -- and seeing that
> Fundamentalism doesn't achieve
> political power.
I'm with you on this: real spiritual progress can
never be achieved politically (although we are called
to be salt and light). I'm not a fan of many of George
Bush's recent actions, despite his faith which has
tended to make him immune from criticism in some
Christian circles here in the UK. But Biology isn't
"god" nor even Chemistry, much as we like them!
> A theocratic United States would be one of the
> gravest dangers this
> world has ever faced. As far as I am concerned,
> everything else is
> secondary, except perhaps the individual. As for
> the differences in
> worldviews, philosophic or religious, I have decided
> that personally
> the best position for me is one of Olympian
> detachment -- so long as
> we aren't speaking of Fundamentalism. To let people
> make their own
> choices and think for themselves. If they wish to
> try and change
> one-another's views, that's fine. But that's just
> me, my own personal
> stand.
Amen brother to that last point!
Thanks Tim for your thought-provoking post. (Now, what
have I provoked?!)
Nick.
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1114
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 17:32:00
On 27/06/06, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Pete, Interesting piece of research, albeit in its
> very early stages yet: "...the question of mechanism
> remains.". And no support for a so-called "gay gene"
> as the Stonewall spokesman seems to imply.
Incidentally, Nick, I didn't get the impression that you were
gloating. From what I could tell, you were simply streaking through
occasionally, although I didn't really did good look at your face. I
was just worried that you might trip over your own pants. I am glad
to see that you are alright.
1115
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 17:44:00
On 27/06/06, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Neat.
>
> But can we also conclude that Setterfield remains an partly-educated, er,
[insert appropriate derogation] with an axe to grind?
>
I don't typically associate any degree of education with crackpots.
In my mind, they have renounced whatever degrees they might have
earned earlier in their lives.
1116
Marc Draco
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 17:57:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
"heterosexual marriage is sinful according to both Old
and New Testaments (and other religious books too -
Orthodox Jewish and Muslim teaching would also condemn
it)."
By that, Nick presumably means homosexual marriage...
"However People still have to make choices about their behaviour
whatever their chemical makeup."
By that, Nick means even if you fancy people of the same sex, you can
still overcome that desire and have sexual relations with people of the
opposite sex. Clearly, Nick has no concept of what being gay is or
feels like. My assertion is based on the assumption that he has not
discussed this with many, if any, homosexual people. I have a number of
gay friends and they think just like I do.
There is a defined mental illness, as I recall, related to this, where
people of one sex believe that they are of the other (commonly known as
transexuality). Homosexuality (last I checked) was not defined as
mental illness. Therefore people requesting gender reassignment most go
through vigorous psychological assessments and actually live in their
chosen sex for some time before completing the operation.
The bible, I would assume, would classify both homosexuality and
transexuality as sins. Yet people with either of this alignments
consider themselves neither sinners nor ill. Neither "condition" can be
cured - despite some bullsh*t stories from discredited American
psychologists.
As for Dan Brown: he isn't the first author to suggest that Jesus
married Mary Magdalene; he's just the first to make a shedload of
money from it. Good for him too. He's turned a crap misinterpretation
of a pretty good painting (by a homosexual!) into a page-turner.
Quite how Nick knows precisely what Jesus did or did not put into
practise is open to conjecture. Certainly, the Biblical records are
open to interpretation. Jesus, let's remember, wasn't even a
Christian... and his deeds are recorded by people if I remember my
history, by people who most likely never actually met him.
As Ken Ham is rather fond of saying to biologists, "How do you know?
Where you there?"
Finally, I would like some clarification here where Nick says:
"Genre and context are vital in proper Bible exegesis."
One thing I can't stand are poncy words; particularly when they have
two distinct meanings which are not instantly revealed by context.
Exegesis is one of those annoying words because it can mean either:
a) The bible is the literal word of god (the holy ghost guiding the
writer's hand) or,
b) The bible is the actual word of a man (or men) based on their own
inspiration.
This should also be distinct from eisegesis which is what happens when
people pick passages and manipulate them to their own end. This has
been amply demonstrated by humorists who have used passages from the
bible to prove that some abhorrent sexualities are just fine.
The problem with these methods is that people pick and chose rational
or revealed exegesis depending on what point they are trying to make.
->
Hi Pete, Interesting piece of research, albeit in its
very early stages yet: "...the question of mechanism
remains.". And no support for a so-called "gay gene"
as the Stonewall spokesman seems to imply.
Homosexual orientation (if this is what you mean by
BEING gay) is not a sin nor is "temptation" generally,
but any sexual (genital) relationship/practice outside
heterosexual marriage is sinful according to both Old
and New Testaments (and other religious books too -
Orthodox Jewish and Muslim teaching would also condemn
it).
The Christian understanding is that God does not "make
people gay" - all sin is a consequence of the Fall
(man's first disobedience), and this can include that
caused by chemicals (eg drug-taking during pregnancy)
or even antibodies, if further research confirms that
hypothesis. However People still have to make choices
about their behaviour whatever their chemical makeup.
Despite what Dan Brown says about Mary Magdalene(!),
Jesus Christ did not put into practice any temptation
He experienced - which must have included sexual -
because He never married. (He is actually engaged to
another at this moment!). God promises to give us the
power to resist temptation. More controversially, 1st
Corinthians refers to EX-homosexual offenders who have
become Christians. Many evangelicals would argue that
this means that orientation change is possible with
God's help, but the text doesn't say so specifically.
In answer to your previous posts, I am not ashamed to
be called a fundamentalist - this word needs freeing
from the normative "baggage" it carries - because I
believe the foundational truths of the Christian faith
revealed in Scripture. However I am not a "literalist"
and I don't know anyone who is. Some of the Bible is
clearly poetry, whilst the wisdom literature uses much
hyperbole to reinforce its message. The Psalms were
meant to be sung rather than merely read. Jesus used
parabolic language and not a little humour! Genre and
context are vital in proper Bible exegesis.
1117
Marc Draco
Secular Uprising
27/06/2006 18:37:00
Nick seems surprised at the fact that secularists and atheists (I love
the way that people use the term in such derogatory fashion) are up in
arms all of a sudden. He clearly seems puzzled as to why people like me
gloat over his every mistake.
OK.
Well, I gloat because Nick opened fire on me first in a private email
correcting my spelling. The original and reply was re-posted back to
this group some time back. I don't claim to be perfect but I try to
check my sources for accuracy. Nick continues to evade questions from
Lenny and others and blithers on about irrelevance upon
misrepresentation of science. Nick isn't above gloating as he, himself
did about Schrodinger's cat when after misreading an article on Fox
news: and then failing to enter the correct URL. In some idiot or poorly
educated creationist, I could understand, but from a man of science this
is unacceptable.
Point two: why are secularists angry and why do they want Christianity
put in its place?
Here's a head's up. This isn't a Christian country any more. Most people
couldn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about The Christ or what
he stood for. Fewer still could really defend some of the things
Christians have done and are currently responsible for.
In fact, for the most part, they were happy to let the warm and fuzzies
go about their business.
And then George W. Bush attacked Iraq with Holy Tony Blair at his side.
Suddenly, warm and fuzzy Christians weren't so warm and fuzzy after all.
Holy Tony continued this theme by investing one of his closet allies
with a knighthood for providing service to education.
Few people were aware, but suddenly got wind that the Creationists were
in schools - and then the sh*t hit the fan.
Secularists found themselves under attack from a new band of lying,
cheating, manipulating, well-funded and practically untouchable
individuals set on controlling the world. Science that so many of us
spent long hours into the night learning and developing was under attack
from a pack of liars who promised everyone simple answers. Recent
history is being manipulated for the political gain of a very few rich
people and we're sick of it.
Not one single, solitary claim of ID or creationism or any of the
related "theories" has ever come within a sniff of being demonstrated
and yet educated people insist on foisting those ideas on vulnerable
children: and that's where I draw the line.
1118
Rudy Vonk
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 18:42:00
On 27 jun 2006, at 17:04, Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> Hi Pete, Interesting piece of research, albeit in its
> very early stages yet: "...the question of mechanism
> remains.".
Ah, so instead of investigating further, perhaps we should ignore this
(substantial) study.
> And no support for a so-called "gay gene"
> as the Stonewall spokesman seems to imply.
Somebody, better qualified than I am, has already responded to this
vacuous remark (i.e. no evidence to the contrary either, and plenty of
other studies hinting at genetic origins - not decisive perhaps).
> Homosexual orientation (if this is what you mean by
> BEING gay) is not a sin nor is "temptation" generally,
> but any sexual (genital) relationship/practice outside
>
> heterosexual marriage is sinful according to both Old
> and New Testaments (and other religious books too -
> Orthodox Jewish and Muslim teaching would also condemn
> it).
(My translation:) So feeling horny is OK, regardless of whether one's
desire is oriented towards same or different gender, same or different
species, etc. It becomes a sin once you act upon it outside your
heterosexual marriage. I guess raping one's wife is legitimate, though.
(This is not meant personally.)
> Despite what Dan Brown says about Mary Magdalene(!),
I hasten to reassure you that I am not in the least interested in what
Dan Brown says about Mary Magdalene or anybody else, but
> Jesus Christ did not put into practice any temptation
> He experienced - which must have included sexual -
> because He never married.
This you obviously know because the biography of the historical Jesus
Christ is entirely contained in the New Testament - written by
different sources beginning a minimum of 20 or 30 years after his
supposed death, except that it barely covers anything other than the
myths surrounding his birth, and the year or so (slightly less, I
understand) of his ministry. Where does it say what he was doing in the
thirty-odd intervening years?
(snip)
> However I do believe that the whole text itself is
> inspired by God, and hence inerrant as given in its
> original languages.
I have a little problem here. The alleged authors of the NT clearly
were not around at any time until at best shortly before he became
"active", or they would have mentioned a detail or two about his
earlier life. AFIK, none of them mentions having been filled in on the
rest of the facts by God. These are clearly personal (first-, second-,
third-hand, etc.) "recollections". I guess this brings me to my real
question, which interests me more than any rationale about dinosaurs or
stars painted on the inside of the solar system's wrapper:
> It is accurate historically,
> including Genesis 1-11 (which is clearly not written
> as myth), and - yes - scientifically.
Nick, you know this is not true. There is absolutely no way that you
cannot know this isn't true. You must have been alive long enough,
exposed to some form of education, communication, even perhaps engaged
in some rational thought, to know this is absolutely not true. So why
on earth do people like you make out - sometimes with a straight face -
that you do believe it? Do you really think there are enough people on
earth ready to believe that just another charming prehistorical
creation myth is historically and scientifically true - so that you can
make a bid for political, economic and cultural power (read:
totalitarianism)? I mean, very few people, and none with a teaching job
at a UK public school, can be as abjectly stupid as to believe the
historical and scientific truth of a good yarn spun by a shaman in a
pre-agricultural society from an obscure Middle East outpost. You know
you are lying, but I am curious as to your motives...
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1119
Peter Hearty
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 18:49:00
Nick
Thank you for the detailed reply. I joined this group specifically hoping to
engage with you, and I'm glad you're taking the trouble to respond.
> Homosexual orientation (if this is what you mean by
> BEING gay) is not a sin nor is "temptation" generally,
> but any sexual (genital) relationship/practice outside
> heterosexual marriage is sinful according to both Old
> and New Testaments (and other religious books too -
> Orthodox Jewish and Muslim teaching would also condemn
> it).
That implies that a homosexual person must remain celibate for their entire
lives. Why would your God impose such an intolerable burden on someone?
> The Christian understanding is that God does not "make
> people gay" - all sin is a consequence of the Fall
Either God foresaw the fall, and all its consequences, or he didn't. If if
he did foresee it then why didn't he just create things that wouldn't fall?
If he didn't then he's not all knowing. Either way, it implies defects in
your God. This also implies that children are responsible for the sins of
their parents. Which is just plain silly.
> However People still have to make choices
> about their behaviour whatever their chemical makeup.
Agreed, but as I've just pointed out, you seem to be suggesting that gay
people should remain celibate, which seems unreasonable to me.
> Many evangelicals would argue that
> this means that orientation change is possible
I'm sorry Nick, but this is just nonsense. All the evidence suggests
otherwise. And why should someone change to comply with the tenets of your
holy book?
> However I am not a "literalist"
> and I don't know anyone who is. Some of the Bible is
> clearly poetry, whilst the wisdom literature uses much
> hyperbole to reinforce its message. The Psalms were
> meant to be sung rather than merely read. Jesus used
> parabolic language and not a little humour! Genre and
> context are vital in proper Bible exegesis.
This is fascinating. Why, if you are prepared to accept that some of the
bible is not literally true, are you so insistent that Genesis is? Without
wishing to sound patronising, you're clearly an intelligent man, you must
realise that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence proves Genesis
wrong as a literal statement. Many Christians seem to manage just fine
without a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why do you feel unable to join
them?
If I might speculate for a moment. I suspect that you cling to the bible as
the one immovable rock in a constantly changing and confusing world. Allow
the possibility that your rock might be interpreted differently, and it
means you being cut loose into that maelstron of uncertainty. Yet many
people, including several of us on this group, have done just that. You'll
be surprised how remarkably beautiful the messy old world is when you use
your own conscience rather than rely on the conscience of some ancient
scribe. After all, what do think being made in God's image means, other than
to know right from wrong?
> However I do believe that the whole text itself is
> inspired by God, and hence inerrant as given in its
> original languages.
Including the fact that the *gods* (plural) created the earth?
> including Genesis 1-11 (which is clearly not written
> as myth),
Why are you so sure? Read as a morality tale it makes a great deal of sense.
Certainly far more sense than as a historical description.
Incidentally, there is even a sense in which you creationists are correct
(and don't you dare quote me out of context on that). The world as we
understand it did come into being about 6,000 years ago. This coincides with
the invention of writing. By that point, urbanisation and agriculture were
firmly established. I suspect that this is no coincidence. The bible is one
of the few ancient texts which seems to preserve ancient tribal stories
dating this far back in time.
> about Chemistry or even Geology,
But you do when you come to cosmology. Why? As I've pointed out to you
before, Astronomy 101 contradicts all the timescales given in Genesis.
> there are no proven scientific "mistakes" or
> "contradictions" in it.
Oh, come on now Nick. You're talking to people who actually know the bible
here quite well. Let's not get diverted into that argument.
>
> And yes, it isn't "Christian" to gloat -
> apologies(although I don't think I'm the worst
> offender in this Group!).
Indeed you're not. A bit more civility all round would seem to be in order.
As Dave Allen used to say, may your god go with you.
Pete
1120
Marc Draco
Hey Ken, I was there...
27/06/2006 18:53:00
Ken Ham often poses the question "How do you know? Were you there?" When
trying to silence his critics.
Here's an answer.
"Yes, Ken. I was."
I can rationalise that answer (with help from Carl Sagan) but it's a
good and fairly reasonable way to shut the ignorant up.
1121
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 18:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
> The Greek word "arsenokoitai" simply means "man in
> bed" and does not refer in any way to children. The
> Bible is clear too that woman is not inferior to man
> in the eyes of God (who made both in His image) though
> they may have different roles (obvious from Biology!)
Er great.
Thanks for the preaching. So why do the fundamentalists at ICR, AiG,
the DI and whoever else keep claiming that their YEC science has
nothing to do with religion. It stands in its own right.
Or, are the fundamentalists lying?
Roger Stanyard
1122
Roger Stanyard
Re: Secular Uprising
27/06/2006 19:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Nick seems surprised at the fact that secularists and atheists (I
love
> the way that people use the term in such derogatory fashion) are up
in
> arms all of a sudden.
Yep, and also they way they never mention that the people in here may
be Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Taoist or agnostic - even when you point
out that we have an ordained minister here.
And the way that valid marriage is always assumed to be based on the
bible.
Roger Stanyard
1123
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 18:21:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
from my recollection Tim, Setterfield never actually got a degree;
everyone on the planet has some form of education - even if it's only
language.
But I agree that once someone adopts crackpot ideas then they also lose
the rights and privileges of the degree or doctorate they claim.
No one would tolerate behavior from a driver who suddenly started
driving on the wrong side of the road; or claimed that it was alright
to drive while intoxicated. Such a person would lose their licence. The
same should be applied to degrees and other higher education.
Timothy Chase wrote:
->
On 27/06/06, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> Neat.
>
> But can we also conclude that Setterfield remains an
partly-educated, er, [insert appropriate derogation] with an axe to
grind?
>
I don't typically associate any degree of education with crackpots.
In my mind, they have renounced whatever degrees they might have
earned earlier in their lives.
1124
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 20:36:00
On 27/06/06, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The Greek word "arsenokoitai" simply means "man in
> bed" and does not refer in any way to children.
I have heard this as well. I wouldn't know since the Ancient Greek
was something my wife took, not me. But I am simply passing along
what I had heard from a bishop.
> The
> Bible is clear too that woman is not inferior to man
> in the eyes of God (who made both in His image) though
> they may have different roles (obvious from Biology!).
I wouldn't know. From what I understand, the Bible sometimes juggles
things a bit, such as the order in which the various forms of life
were created.
> The pseudo-psychological argument cited is complete
> speculation.
But evidence for it would seem to be something of a headline grabber
at times, don't you think?
> To argue thus against the clear Biblical
> teaching against homosexual practice is to invent
> one's own religion, which sadly seems to be happening
> in parts of the ECUSA (I speak as a fellow-Anglican).
> Unfortunately it isn't Christianity!
So I have heard. I wouldn't know since theology really isn't one of
my interests.
> You married a Moira too - great!!
Yes. I consider her to be my superior in intellect -- and she's
taller, too -- by several inches.
> I used the term: "fascist atheists" in a previous post
> which attracted considerable flank - sorry, flak! I
> don't suspect either word is true of yourself, but -
> in view of your analogy - now would be a good time to
> give an apologetic for it. By "fascist" I meant the
> intolerant view that only one opinion is valid, and
> that other opinions must be suppressed by force -
> including the force of verbal/written protest to
> school Boards/unions etc. I think you can see the
> irony of a statement like: "Don't let fascists speak".
I agree entirely. I am a pluralist. I believe fascists should be
permitted to stand up on a soapbox in the middle of Hyde Park --
assuming they haven't stolen it, and be permitted to speak to anyone
who will voluntarily listen to them -- assuming they don't break any
noise ordinances.
> Sadly this Group (and DC) contains people who, because
> they are atheists and/or secularists, wish to suppress
> any mention of a Designer in science classes.
> Do you
> think they'd settle for that? Or is their ultimate aim
> to rid education (life generally?) of any mention of
> God, and particularly of Jesus Christ (except as a
> swearword of course)? I think considerable paranoia
> exists in this whole area, as well as an unhealthy
> dose of "conspiracy theory" mania. If my own ID/YEC
> position is so absurd, then don't you think the
> students will figure it out for themselves? What are
> you afraid of? They deserve the chance to consider
> other views. To deny them that is fascism.
I am new here, so I don't know quite how things are handled as of yet.
However, I would regard DebunkCreation as the virtual embodiment of
my ideals -- and I believe it has given me to understand my ideals
more clearly.
As for mentioning the "designer" in science classes, are you
suggesting this as an alternative to secular science? Would this be a
Christian science? Do you believe in different sciences for people of
different religious beliefs, economic classes and/or ethnicities?
Just curious.
> > I personally think that in terms of the evolution of
> > Christianity,
>
> Not my favourite phrase in your post! The biblical
> revelation of God is that He is immutable. If and when
> He (or the Bible text) changes, then it will be OK for
> Christianity to change according to the political
> correctness/scientific orthodoxy of the day.
As I have said, I am no theologian. But what I have heard more
enlightened theologians say is not that God himself is mutable -- I am
not even sure that this would make sense -- but that our understanding
of him is. For example, at one time, people believed that the Bible
justified slavery -- and they would cite verses to prove it.
> There is a world of difference between "creativity" -
> the first revealed attribute of God - and mutability.
>
> > I strongly suspect that if church-goers can accept
> > this, then they
> > will be much more open to the scientific discoveries
> > involving human
> > sexuality. Much of the Old Testament involves God
> > commanding people
> > to engage in savagery which would run against the
> > grain of any modern
> > people who haven't been entirely brainwashed by
> > Fundamentalist churches
> "Much" - really? The relatively few incidents you
> refer to are so obviously outweighed by the revelation
> of God's LOVE for His sinful creation, which pervades
> both OT and NT. There are reasons for the acts that
> seem abhorrent to us but BS probably isn't the forum
> for dicussing such (feel free to e-mail me directly).
Agreed. I suspect people in this forum wouldn't want to hear a great
deal about the rape of women and the slaughter of children.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "modern people" - it
> seems to me that we're not evolving morally: rather
> the opposite!
We have evolved morally to a fairly significant degree. It used to be
that there were no rules or laws governing acts of war, different
tribes would kill one-another over slight differences of religious
belief... Wait a second: perhaps you are right -- you would appear to
be attempting to bring back the good old days.
> > But obviously it isn't something that I
> > can get involved in
> > -- my concern is with the defense of science,
> > particularly
> > evolutionary biology -- and seeing that
> > Fundamentalism doesn't achieve
> > political power.
> I'm with you on this: real spiritual progress can
> never be achieved politically (although we are called
> to be salt and light). I'm not a fan of many of George
> Bush's recent actions, despite his faith which has
> tended to make him immune from criticism in some
> Christian circles here in the UK. But Biology isn't
> "god" nor even Chemistry, much as we like them!
I personally believe that spiritual progress and struggle (jihad) are
essentially between the individual and whatever god they worship -- if
they worship any god at all. Moreover, mixing religion with science
must inevitably result in the corruption of both.
> > A theocratic United States would be one of the
> > gravest dangers this
> > world has ever faced. As far as I am concerned,
> > everything else is
> > secondary, except perhaps the individual. As for
> > the differences in
> > worldviews, philosophic or religious, I have decided
> > that personally
> > the best position for me is one of Olympian
> > detachment -- so long as
> > we aren't speaking of Fundamentalism. To let people
> > make their own
> > choices and think for themselves. If they wish to
> > try and change
> > one-another's views, that's fine. But that's just
> > me, my own personal
> > stand.
>
>
> Amen brother to that last point!
I am glad there are some things we can agree upon.
> Thanks Tim for your thought-provoking post. (Now, what
> have I provoked?!)
Mostly just curiosity with respect to the questions I raised. Do you
advocate a polylogism similar to that embraced by the good old
Marxists and Nazis? I find that proponents of irrationalist
philosophies oftentimes do, but I am always on the lookout for things
which might help me shatter my preconceptions.
1125
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 21:25:00
On 27/06/06, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> from my recollection Tim, Setterfield never actually got a degree; everyone on
the planet has some form of education - even if it's only language.
Well, I was assuming he had at least a HS diploma. I am truly disappointed...
> But I agree that once someone adopts crackpot ideas then they also lose the
rights and privileges of the degree or doctorate they claim.
>
> No one would tolerate behavior from a driver who suddenly started driving on
the wrong side of the road; or claimed that it was alright to drive while
intoxicated. Such a person would lose their licence. The same should be applied
to degrees and other higher education.
One would hope. But then of course there are the degree mills --
their degrees wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on, would
they? I am afraid a lot of people would suddenly be out of work.
1126
Roger Stanyard
Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 22:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> from my recollection Tim, Setterfield never actually got a degree;
> everyone on the planet has some form of education - even if it's only
> language.
>
Setterfield drooped out of university after the first of his degree.
Roger Stanyard
PS: It never fails to strike me when I am looking at fundamentalists
why I end up discussing a nobody from nowhere. Setterfield was a 1980s
jerk.
Does anyone also get that feeling?
1127
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 22:26:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Thanks for that clarification - I thought as much.
And in answer to your question. So do I mate, so do I!
Roger Stanyard wrote:
->
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> from my recollection Tim, Setterfield never actually got a degree;
> everyone on the planet has some form of education - even if it's
only
> language.
>
Setterfield drooped out of university after the first of his degree.
Roger Stanyard
PS: It never fails to strike me when I am looking at fundamentalists
why I end up discussing a nobody from nowhere. Setterfield was a 1980s
jerk.
Does anyone also get that feeling?
1128
Marc Draco
Nicks procrastinating again.
27/06/2006 22:15:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
>> "Much" - really? The relatively few incidents you
>> refer to are so obviously outweighed by the revelation
>> of God's LOVE for His sinful creation, which pervades
>> both OT and NT. There are reasons for the acts that
>> seem abhorrent to us but BS probably isn't the forum
>> for dicussing such (feel free to e-mail me directly).
>Agreed. I suspect people in this forum wouldn't want to hear a great
>deal about the rape of women and the slaughter of children.
Let's not forget the rape and sexual abuse of children too. That's a
really fine example of Biblical morality if ever I saw one.
Now why were the children hurt like this? Because they (and their
parents) didn't happen to believe in YHVH (an early name for the god
that Nick follows).
> Sadly this Group (and DC) contains people who, because
> they are atheists and/or secularists, wish to suppress
> any mention of a Designer in science classes.
Sadly? This group and DC exists specifically for those reasons. That's
like saying, "Sadly, the Christian church exists to promote Jesus"
There is no evidence for a designer. None. Not a sausage. There is
plenty of wild conjecture and debate ascribed by people who have a
vested (power and financial) interest in their actually being a
designer: but evidence? None.
I hate to bring this up again, but why would the designer make such a
hash of things? Marsupials have a much better "designed" reproductive
system than we humans, and there are countless other examples.
As for morals, we need look no further than the Roman Catholic
paedophiles for irony in morals guidance.
Assuming that your God (or Christianity in general) has the final say
in morals is arrogance beyond belief: who is to say what's morally
right and wrong?
Is slavery wrong? Plenty of that in the bible from what I recall.
Slavery was commonplace until a few centuries ago - and look, it's the
Christians at it just like everyone else.
Is murder wrong? Lots of that going on in recent times - and where are
the Christians? Right in the thick of it.
Given the way that some Christians have raped, murdered and lied their
way through history, is there any surprise that secular humanists and
atheists prefer to follow the moral code defined by a humanitarian
framework? Is there any surprise that they want to suppress ideas that
will throw us back several centuries. The creator of this group rightly
points out that ONE dark age was enough.
Evolution is proof of where we came from and how long it took to
happen. You can lie and hiss and spit all you like about that - but
it's not going to change the fact that evolution rightly supplants
creationism - because understanding evolves. In year 7 chemistry, we
learnt that electrons orbit nuclei in one particular way but by the
time we get to A level, that simple idea has been replaced by a much
clearer, far more involved theory. We learn that the smallest particles
are atoms, then (as our knowledge expands) the bits of atoms, and then
the bits of the bits. Knowledge evolves.
Creationism is one easy answer. It was a simple answer for simpler
times. It served a purpose (and a political one for the most part) but
its time has passed.
Or has it? A small number of people are resurrecting it for their own
ends. It's fantastic cash cow: better even than the ministries of bogus
healers and bent politicians. It preys on the minds of innocent people
by promising a single, simple theory that they can all understand. It
appeals to our most basic psychology and promises something that ends
all fears. In that it is the most powerful drug of all.
It is the root of all evil. Without it, bad people do bad things; with
it, good people do bad things too.
Just look at what it's done to you Nick. It's made a monkey out of you.
A warm, loving, fuzzy monkey perhaps, a cynical and arrogant and
boastful one at times. Even as a science teacher, you have abandoned
the very tenets of science - that truth requires not faith but proof.
It's got you so convinced that you're right that you consistently
refute scientific proofs even when they are laid out for you.
How can a chemist not follow the basics radiometric dating? It either
works or it doesn't. According to creationists, it doesn't - so how
the hell do you explain radioactive decay and half-lives in the
classroom? That just boggles me.
Here's what a practicing *Christian* scientist and specialist in this
field has to say: "As scientists, we deal daily with what God has
revealed about
Himself through the created universe. The psalmist marveled at how God,
Creator
of the universe, could care about humans: "When I consider Your
heavens,
the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in
place,
what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care
for him?''"
(Psalm 8:3-4). Near the beginning of the twenty-first century we can
marvel all
the more, knowing how vast the universe is, how ancient are the rocks
and hills,
and how carefully our environment has been designed. Truly God is more
awesome
than we can imagine"
You can find the entire piece here: http://tinyurl.com/2xvjp
Now as a secularist, I might not agree with his view on HOW we got
here, but I follow his reasoning on WHEN.
In this single paragraph, Dr. Wiens commands more respect from me than
Nick's entire collection of rantings could ever do. The difference
between Nick's idiotic blubbering and Wein's thoughtful piece is
instantly apparent. Weins embraces the Christian God and the Christian
church completely; but he does so while accepting and marvelling at the
universe of evidence around him. I would heartily enjoy debating
theology with Weins and I'm sure we would cross swords on a number of
issues, but I rather doubt that truth would be on of them.
Nick Cowan and his ilk wind me up and if I attack them, then I make no
apologies for it. I don't like liars and I despise liars who teach.
1129
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Invisibility -- as a result of a neg. index of refraction
27/06/2006 22:53:00
On 27/06/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
>
> wrote:
> >
> > from my recollection Tim, Setterfield never actually got a degree;
> > everyone on the planet has some form of education - even if it's only
> > language.
> >
>
> Setterfield drooped out of university after the first of his degree.
>
> Roger Stanyard
>
> PS: It never fails to strike me when I am looking at fundamentalists
> why I end up discussing a nobody from nowhere. Setterfield was a 1980s
> jerk.
>
> Does anyone also get that feeling?
I suspect that they are seeking unearned prestige and power over
whoever will follow them to compensate for a massive inferiority
complex. Total obedience catering to the absolute whim. I believe my
wife might be able to suggest more at this point, but she is at home.
Likewise, they probably crave attention -- since without such
attention they would have to face the fact that there is nothing
inside -- they might even feel invisible.
Sometimes I think shame is sorely underrated.
1130
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 23:37:00
Nick, I don't give aflying fig about your homophobia.
I want you to answer my scientific questions.
Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.
I weary of your evasions and dishonesties.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1131
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
27/06/2006 23:40:00
Dudes, all you are doing is allowing Nick to preach, which is exactly
all that he WANTS to do.
He's the one who claims his crap is SCIENCE. Make him demonstrate
it.
Nick, I don't remotely care about your religious opinions. They are,
after all, no more holy or divine or authoritative than anyone ELSE's
religious opinions. (shrug)
So I want you to shut your mouth, shut your Bible, and just show me
your SCIENCE.
Or are you just lying to us when you claim to HAVE any science? If
fundamentalist preaching, in the final analysis, all creationism has
to offer?
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1132
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
28/06/2006 01:29:00
--- Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dudes, all you are doing is allowing Nick to preach,
> which is exactly
> all that he WANTS to do.
No, that's unfair. As you can see, I have been asked
(by name) in this forum to give answers to certain
questions which have either/both scientific and
theological relevance. I have tried to avoid strings
of Bible quotations. I am admittedly more familiar
with aspects of theology than with some of the direct
science questions, so I tend to answer the former
immediately. For your own questions I need help from
useful websites (AiG etc!!).
> He's the one who claims his crap is SCIENCE. Make
> him demonstrate
> it.
>
> Nick, I don't remotely care about your religious
> opinions. They are,
> after all, no more holy or divine or authoritative
> than anyone ELSE's
> religious opinions. (shrug)
>
> So I want you to shut your mouth, shut your Bible,
> and just show me
> your SCIENCE.
>
> Or are you just lying to us when you claim to HAVE
> any science? If
> fundamentalist preaching, in the final analysis, all
> creationism has
> to offer?
No, but you'll have to be patient - you did claim to
be (although I'd hate to meet an IMpatient American!).
I also need to know some practical things, like how to
get the (Greek capital) letter "delta" from the
keyboard. Be careful, I might just ask you some
awkward questions about Chemistry.
(sounds of Drosophila mating - what, no new species
after 70 years!)
Regards, Nick.
>
> ===================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> My Reptile Page
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
>
>
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1133
Andrew
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
28/06/2006 02:22:00
The reason so many questions are being asked is that everything you're doing
is questionable.
But the basic reason for concern is your position as a science teacher, and
for that reason I'm inclined to agree with Lenny - at least, the essential
and most pressing questions are the scientific ones. I'd have thought the
other questions are secondary, though related.
1134
Timothy Chase
Found this interesting: A Creationist Stereotype of Evilutionists
28/06/2006 02:39:00
Comment #50
marie, u s / 12:02am 26 Jun 2006
"Animal behavior is exhibited by human beings. Beastly acts of self
abuse, sexual abuse, group orgies, violent rioting at sports events
and the many other uncivilized approaches toward self and others
indicates something. Either we are just advanced apes or we have been
indoctrinated to believe that we are by the scientists. If humans are
unaccountable to a creator they tend to be given over to base sexual
and moral orientations. I believe Darwinist promoters wanted to be
free to exercise their lusts without the restraint of spiritual
authority. That may be true of those who vehemently force no creator
laws and doctrines today."
Scientific world unites over origins of life
EBEN HARRELL
http://snipurl.com/se89
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=911332006#comment4311
1135
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
28/06/2006 02:47:00
> >
> > Dudes, all you are doing is allowing Nick to preach,
> > which is exactly
> > all that he WANTS to do.
>
> No, that's unfair.
Don't bullshit me, Nick.
I don't want to hear your excuses. And I don't want to hear your
preaching. You don't know any more about god than anyone else does,
and your religious opinions are no more authoritative than mine, my
next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my
pizzas.
I want you to answer my scientific questions. Quit stalling, quit
arm-waving, quit changing the subject, and just answer the goddamn
questions.
Unless, of course, you cannot.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page