BikePackin
Any thoughts on the movie to be released later this month, "Expelled," by Ben Stein ? The topic is freedom for education.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php
Your thoughts (?) on the to be released movie, "Expelled?"
Pages :
[1]
2
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Mr York
It is a movie demonstrating how logical fallacies are used to obfuscate science, reason, and verifiable evidence. The movie is the latest attempt by the discovery institute to "teach the controversy" as part of their wedge strategy. So instead of teaching people what creationism is and what it explains, they try to cast doubt on evolution. They are not teaching science or even what they believe, they are just trying to sow doubt in evolution. It is a propaganda movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/sciam_on_expelled.php#more
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/thieves_and_liars.php#more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/sciam_on_expelled.php#more
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/thieves_and_liars.php#more
twobikes
Contrary to the previous comment, I saw the movie last evening and would not say it is a propaganda piece. It shows how academia supposedly champions open inquiry and the pursuit of truth, but limits acceptable truth to its own predetermined orthodoxy. This has resulted in the dismissal of scientists with excellent credentials who just happened to notice that Darwinism does not adequately explain life. Although not mentioned in the film, I thought about Galileo being forced by the Pope to deny what he saw in his telescope. The modern scientific community would be quick to condemn that Pope and the Church of that day, yet the members of today's scientific and academic communities are doing the same thing today with anyone who questions the place of evolution.
The movie does not go into specific problems for evolution, like Robert Gentry's study of radio halos. Google Gentry or radio halos for more information. But, it challenges evolution's self-appointed acceptance as the only truth. The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust. This is something people do not always realize, but the film does a very good job of making the connection. It also starkly asks what is left of human life after evolution pries away from someone a belief in God, then a belief in life after death, followed by no basis for ethical behavior and no free will.
I heard Glenn Beck discussing the film on his radio program as a "stand up and cheer" event. But, I had already read most of the things I heard and saw in the film, so it really was not new ground for me. It would be an eye opener for many people and deserves to be viewed on a large scale.
The movie does not go into specific problems for evolution, like Robert Gentry's study of radio halos. Google Gentry or radio halos for more information. But, it challenges evolution's self-appointed acceptance as the only truth. The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust. This is something people do not always realize, but the film does a very good job of making the connection. It also starkly asks what is left of human life after evolution pries away from someone a belief in God, then a belief in life after death, followed by no basis for ethical behavior and no free will.
I heard Glenn Beck discussing the film on his radio program as a "stand up and cheer" event. But, I had already read most of the things I heard and saw in the film, so it really was not new ground for me. It would be an eye opener for many people and deserves to be viewed on a large scale.
dewaday
All your doing is arguing against evolution. How about presenting the argument for creationism?
twobikes
If you view Ben Stein's "Expelled" the issue in the film is not creationism vs. evolution. The issue presented in the film is whether any alternative to evolution dare to be mentioned and discussed. At the present time, academia and those considered the scientific community will not allow any model other than evolution to be considered. Stein argues such a stance turns the founding principles of our universities and our nation upside down and nullifies them. Yet, Stein also brings to view learned opinion that scientific inquiry raises questions about the adequacy of Darwinism to explain life. Richard Dawkins even admits in the film that some intelligence may well be responsible for the first cell capable of multiplication into two, but he will not allow that intelligence under any circumstances to be God. Instead, he posited in the film that it might be some intelligence that visited from another planet. Then he admitted this was only a guess on his part. It was a very telling moment in the film.
You very much miss the point of my post above and of the film by posing this issue in terms of creation vs. evolution. Stein argues that we ought be able to have open discussions in our universities about Darwinism and raise questions about its inadequacies, but at present that is in no way allowed.
You very much miss the point of my post above and of the film by posing this issue in terms of creation vs. evolution. Stein argues that we ought be able to have open discussions in our universities about Darwinism and raise questions about its inadequacies, but at present that is in no way allowed.
TRaffic Jammer
I like Ben Stein for being a man with faith who is also comfortable with science. To completely disallow a train of thought in an intellectual argument, is to ruin a good argument. Until absolute proof is found, Darwinism and Creationism both still remain theories. Heck we can even take some good shots at Relativity, and speed of light physics. Mankind is not nearly as smart as it would like to think it is.
dewaday
No, everyone understands the "point". You just prefer to obfuscate it in a torrent of misinformation, selective analysis, and tap dancing. Apart from creationism/ID, what could we possibly be talking about? Irreducible complexity?
FYI, the origins of life are not in the purview of evolution.
FYI, the origins of life are not in the purview of evolution.
twobikes
No, everyone understands the "point". You just prefer to obfuscate it in a torrent of misinformation, selective analysis, and tap dancing. Apart from creationism/ID, what could we possibly be talking about? Irreducible complexity?
FYI, the origins of life are not in the purview of evolution.
Please understand I am not arguing creation vs. evolution, etc. That would fit better in the Politics and Religion sub-forum. I simply wanted to give my impressions and a brief synopsis of Ben Stein's film.
FYI, the origins of life are not in the purview of evolution.
Please understand I am not arguing creation vs. evolution, etc. That would fit better in the Politics and Religion sub-forum. I simply wanted to give my impressions and a brief synopsis of Ben Stein's film.
dewaday
I simply wanted to give my impressions and a brief synopsis of Ben Stein's film.
Without provoking controversy?
The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust.
Nothing overly provocative here, move along please.
Agreed about P&R, but it somehow showed up here.
Without provoking controversy?
The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust.
Nothing overly provocative here, move along please.
Agreed about P&R, but it somehow showed up here.
Mr York
The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust. This is something people do not always realize, but the film does a very good job of making the connection.
It may seem undeniable, but that is only because of the misleading way the information was presented. Here is a prime reason you can't take what the movie is portraying with any weight of truth, the movie took a passage from the book "The Descent of Man" and chopped it up to make it say something opposite of what was actually written in the book. Here is how Scientific American magazine put it:
Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in bold):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in bold):
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.
It may seem undeniable, but that is only because of the misleading way the information was presented. Here is a prime reason you can't take what the movie is portraying with any weight of truth, the movie took a passage from the book "The Descent of Man" and chopped it up to make it say something opposite of what was actually written in the book. Here is how Scientific American magazine put it:
Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in bold):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in bold):
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.
KrisPistofferson
It's like saying Gravitational Theory should be given equal time with the theory that invisible faeries are holding everything down. It shouldn't.
It's a propaganda piece. Why else would it refuse to analyze the veracity of the claims made, and instead exhaustively explore how we should feel about the claims made? Also, the movie invokes Godwin's Law relatively early in the film. ("Without Darwin there would have been no Hitler") :rolleyes: I predict it will be a big hit with the Religiously Disabled.
It's a propaganda piece. Why else would it refuse to analyze the veracity of the claims made, and instead exhaustively explore how we should feel about the claims made? Also, the movie invokes Godwin's Law relatively early in the film. ("Without Darwin there would have been no Hitler") :rolleyes: I predict it will be a big hit with the Religiously Disabled.
late
Any thoughts on the movie to be released later this month, "Expelled," by Ben Stein ? The topic is freedom for education.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php
Science is done by scientists. I know, I'm a radical..
where it is done is in scientific journals, not movie theaters. That tells you a couple things right there. First that the movie is a polemic, second that it has nothing to do with science. Sorry.
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
fourth, someone in this thread something about no one daring to question evolution. Thanks for the laugh. Everything in science is open to challenge,
and evolution is being worked on. The problem is, it's such a good theory it's not easy to replace. But there are people trying.
I have liked Gould's punctuated equilibrium, it got knocked down and beat up a while back. But it's a survivor, recent work has kept it on life support.
Speaking of Gould, he wrote many books about evolution and his work. Everyone should read a couple.
Lastly, before this descends any further into the abyss... evolution is not unitary.
It is a number of things put together. At root, it is simply descrptive. If you have ever walked into a museum of natural history, you know life changes. I was in the Washington Museum last week. While the museum needs a major updating, the quantity and quality of the fossils and skeletons was remarkable. It was a pleasure to see a mastodon next to a wooly mammoth, for example. After you see
them together, the fuzziness about the difference disappears.
Anyway... descriptive. We know there have been many and major changes to life over the eons. The word we will prob always use to describe those changes is evolution. But there is much discussion about how such changes occur.
But learning about that would require something more than buying a movie ticket.
Just FYI, Rotten Tomatoes gave it one of the lowest ratings I have ever seen.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php
Science is done by scientists. I know, I'm a radical..
where it is done is in scientific journals, not movie theaters. That tells you a couple things right there. First that the movie is a polemic, second that it has nothing to do with science. Sorry.
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
fourth, someone in this thread something about no one daring to question evolution. Thanks for the laugh. Everything in science is open to challenge,
and evolution is being worked on. The problem is, it's such a good theory it's not easy to replace. But there are people trying.
I have liked Gould's punctuated equilibrium, it got knocked down and beat up a while back. But it's a survivor, recent work has kept it on life support.
Speaking of Gould, he wrote many books about evolution and his work. Everyone should read a couple.
Lastly, before this descends any further into the abyss... evolution is not unitary.
It is a number of things put together. At root, it is simply descrptive. If you have ever walked into a museum of natural history, you know life changes. I was in the Washington Museum last week. While the museum needs a major updating, the quantity and quality of the fossils and skeletons was remarkable. It was a pleasure to see a mastodon next to a wooly mammoth, for example. After you see
them together, the fuzziness about the difference disappears.
Anyway... descriptive. We know there have been many and major changes to life over the eons. The word we will prob always use to describe those changes is evolution. But there is much discussion about how such changes occur.
But learning about that would require something more than buying a movie ticket.
Just FYI, Rotten Tomatoes gave it one of the lowest ratings I have ever seen.
BikePackin
[QUOTE=late;6607532]Science is done by scientists. I know, I'm a radical..
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
QUOTE]
Evolution, technically by any scientific text book definition, is a very solid hypothesis.... and, only that.
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
QUOTE]
Evolution, technically by any scientific text book definition, is a very solid hypothesis.... and, only that.
KrisPistofferson
[QUOTE=late;6607532]Science is done by scientists. I know, I'm a radical..
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
QUOTE]
Evolution, technically by any scientific text book definition, is a very solid hypothesis.... and, only that.
No, it's a theory, that's why it's called a "theory." Not to be confused with the colloquial way of saying hypothesis, which is to say theory. To Joe Walmart, "theory" means something you think of while on the toilet or mowing the lawn, to a scientist, there is an entirely different level of veracity for this term. I don't want to hijack this thread, but if it definitively defines these often confused scientific terms, so be it.
Also, "it's just a theory" is the most commonly used logical fallacy Creationists use, even though it makes them look completely ignorant of scientific terminology. They don't care, their audience is even more ignorant than that.
(Those who are truly mystified by the difference between the words hypothesis and theory should perhaps familiarize themselves with these terms and their definitions before chiming in on this thread. Thanks.)
<edit>Actually, anyone who chimes in on this thread should be prepared to actually discuss science, not how it makes them "feel" and not some completely spurious, schizophrenic meta-narrative wherein Darwin is responsible for the Nazis. Don't be stupid.
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
QUOTE]
Evolution, technically by any scientific text book definition, is a very solid hypothesis.... and, only that.
No, it's a theory, that's why it's called a "theory." Not to be confused with the colloquial way of saying hypothesis, which is to say theory. To Joe Walmart, "theory" means something you think of while on the toilet or mowing the lawn, to a scientist, there is an entirely different level of veracity for this term. I don't want to hijack this thread, but if it definitively defines these often confused scientific terms, so be it.
Also, "it's just a theory" is the most commonly used logical fallacy Creationists use, even though it makes them look completely ignorant of scientific terminology. They don't care, their audience is even more ignorant than that.
(Those who are truly mystified by the difference between the words hypothesis and theory should perhaps familiarize themselves with these terms and their definitions before chiming in on this thread. Thanks.)
<edit>Actually, anyone who chimes in on this thread should be prepared to actually discuss science, not how it makes them "feel" and not some completely spurious, schizophrenic meta-narrative wherein Darwin is responsible for the Nazis. Don't be stupid.
benjdm
I like Ben Stein for being a man with faith who is also comfortable with science.
He isn't comfortable with science. He believes science leads to killing people.
Ben Stein: … I also started reading more about a subject that had long interested me, the connection of Darwinism with Nazism, and the fact that Nazism had rested in large part on the idea of Darwinism, that there are superior and inferior races, and that the superior ones deserve to live and they should stamp out the inferior ones…
…
Crouch: What can people of faith do? What do you hope comes from this film?
Stein: Well, we hope that people who have children in schools will tell their children that if the teacher says Darwinism created everything and that there is no explanation for anything in the scientific world except Darwinism, that the student will say, well, Ms. Smith — or whatever the teacher’s name is — how did life begin? What keeps the planets in their orbits? Is there any proof of a separate species ever being seen to evolve?
…
Stein: We’re saying teach what is… what the evidence takes you to. I mean, the evidence does not take you to Darwinism about, uh, about, uh, as to the foundations of life. Darwin just had nothing to say about that. The evidence doesn’t take you to Darwinism about astronomy or about the laws of physics or of thermodynamics.
…
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. [PZ] Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed.
…
Stein (speaking about the Holocaust): …that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: … Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
All transcribed from his interview April 21st on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Go to http://tbn.org/video_portal/, behind the scenes, April 21 to view for yourself.
He isn't comfortable with science. He believes science leads to killing people.
Ben Stein: … I also started reading more about a subject that had long interested me, the connection of Darwinism with Nazism, and the fact that Nazism had rested in large part on the idea of Darwinism, that there are superior and inferior races, and that the superior ones deserve to live and they should stamp out the inferior ones…
…
Crouch: What can people of faith do? What do you hope comes from this film?
Stein: Well, we hope that people who have children in schools will tell their children that if the teacher says Darwinism created everything and that there is no explanation for anything in the scientific world except Darwinism, that the student will say, well, Ms. Smith — or whatever the teacher’s name is — how did life begin? What keeps the planets in their orbits? Is there any proof of a separate species ever being seen to evolve?
…
Stein: We’re saying teach what is… what the evidence takes you to. I mean, the evidence does not take you to Darwinism about, uh, about, uh, as to the foundations of life. Darwin just had nothing to say about that. The evidence doesn’t take you to Darwinism about astronomy or about the laws of physics or of thermodynamics.
…
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. [PZ] Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed.
…
Stein (speaking about the Holocaust): …that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: … Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
All transcribed from his interview April 21st on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Go to http://tbn.org/video_portal/, behind the scenes, April 21 to view for yourself.
red house
uhm.. I have no intentions of like, totally sinking this enlightening discushyunz that discusses how Darwin = Hitler and all that.. But I just wanted to contribute some crazyness of my own. srsly.. It's like seriously twisted. I wrote it during a hyper-manic episode brought on by GOD .. in which I confused Richard Dawkins (the meme guy) -to be some deluded astro-physicist, when in fact he is an evolutionary biologist - who has written several books of which I've just more than a few.. so really crazy or no crazy - I really should have known better. Also - I sorta seanced with Stephen J Gould - which I know was wrong, since he is totally against the after-life... so. having said that I give you my rebuttle to brillig (or timmyquest, I forget which) - who were filling in for Ben Stein at the time.
enjoy.
You do not frighten me, mister tuff guy, with your big mooscles and your big thighs and your huuuge post. I await your onslaught. Show me the money, sweetcheeks.
Oh.. the bitter irony. :P -?
Nicodemus, much of it is 'lost' -- for·evar.. Teh Christianity god stole it from my computer perhaps?? I DON'T KNOW what happened to it. I don't know..
All I have left is this part - it's the last part of it which I saved to my e-mail acct from work. Fortunately - it is also the 'best' and most irreplaceable piece of it.. as it contains an ''imaginary'' dialogue between myself and Richard Dawkins - (and Stephen Gould as well). Man.. I put them in their place!! real talk..
In many ways it is the most surreal/cereal/completely insane part.. -but strangely it is also the most lucid.. go figure. :P
:D -?
[...] So the Christian fundies seem to possess the proclivity that gives them a distinct advantage over the rigid-reasoning process of their adversaries. Yes, the id proponents have developed a capacity to think 'out-side' teh box.. yes, they have! .. It really kind of makes ya feel sorry for the men and women of science, doesn't it? Those poor - out-witted guardians of reason and methodical thinking.. The scientists have accumulated arsenals of knowledge and know-how -- but have not a clue.
The Christians have NO FACTS, NO LOGIC, NO BRAINS -- but, their 'intuition' is GOD LIKE. The scientists on the other hand have 'all' the facts at their disposal - and they have ALL the facts - on 'their' side!! And they are supposed to be 'specialists' in every discipline of problem solving -- and yet they are still subjected to such PWniNGs of this severity! :rolleyes: -? .. :D -?
In this debate he only effective tactic available to the proponents of Id is to spread confusion and obfuscate. Fortunately (for them) sowing confusion and obfuscating the obvious, are the most potent tools in any debate. And the scientists left themselves wide open to this tactic - they are not playing effective defense -- cuz they don't understand the game!
.. Yeah, so the Christians have picked up a thing or two about the language of science -- and a thing or two is all they needed to to completely put the scientist on the back foot. They have appropriated some the most commonly used terms associated with science - and of course these same ones that are required to describe the core essence of their discipline. And Christians are focusing their efforts on the one word that embodies the defining the attributes of the scientific 'theory' - (i.e. ''theory'' :D -? ).
By misusing a word you can distort it's potential for clarity - i.e. you can undermine it's power to bring the concept into sharp focus. The scientists have left themselves vulnerable to word manipulation, since this word 'theory' that the scientists have as the foundation for their whole enterprise, is really kind of broad in scope (!) :rolleyes: -? It doesn't really have a narrow or sharply defined focus - so who's going to take notice when or if someone blurs it by misrepresentation (?) The scientists will take notice - since they are the ones who are most familiar with the image it conveys.. But aside from them - who else is really going to percieve a word going from 'broad' to 'blurry'..? -?
Come on wake up ppl!! They are blurring very concepts that you've use to build your every endeavour! They are polluting the clarity of everything you've ever done! Come on get wit it!! Get some more words together!! MORE WORDS = YOUR VERY SURVIVAL!! :roflmoa: <- he only laff cuz it tru you kno. :P
..okay, speaking of words . how am doing here? I have exceeded my 32 P&R word limit? srsly.. uh.. oh.. can I borrow a few :D -? Hey! Brillig let me borrow some words man! Come on.. you don't ''really'' need them do you? Come on man - cus I 'really' do -(..like really, really). Yo' TimJ help a brother out -? Okay, I'll take some on loan then.. -Yep, I'm in word debt.. deep, deep.. real talk. <-- w/ 'real' words!! :eek: ! :D :beer:
where.was.I.. oh, yeah.
So yo' .. why don't you wake up - and think out side the box for once Mr. Dawkins.? No wonder you remain so oblivious to so many 'obvious' things all around you! You don't value your words enough! What do you even think this whole reality thing is all about - if not words? :P -? ..Dood, get a clue. for real..
.. Man, you 'really' think words are 'just' some ''artificial'' construct that acts as a 'barrier' between us and the ''absolute'' ?? .. you 'reeeeaally' think that? jesus - you ppl are really lost for real - all hung up on teh math - and no appreciation or awareness of the real - i.e. the ''surreal.''
Dawkins.. dood, math is only gonna give you the foundation.. it's not going to tell you what exists 'above' it. And do you know 'how' I know this? It is because I'm ''certifiably insane'' -- and while I'm not denying that! .. I am thinking that some of it is 'true' .. and henceforth I am also saying that 'you' are w/o a clue - regarding the 'essence' of it all.
All that searching.. all that hoping for ''the grand unified theory'' of ''everything'' to bring it all together.. dood, is an equation going to impart any 'meaning' to the universe? NO. <-- .. That's why we evolved ''lang'ua'ge'' .. say it with me; 'lng·gwj' .. lang·wijjah'' btw, that's something called 'pho ne tiks' = ‘word’ of mouth. real talk.
If not for language you'd never be able to think about anything abstractly or coherently enough to even solve for your unknowns and balance your equations.. Come on man!! You need to use teh interchangeable ‘symbol’ IN PLACE of NUMBERS to do your math!! What does this tell you about the necessity and essence of 'symbol' -?.. Hel-oooo?! .. Yeah, but to you words are “but an 'approximation'” - just an artificial construct to artificially describe the artificial aspects of the world. It never even occurred to you that 'we' invented 'words' to comprehend abstract relationships - and discover the 'meaning' of them - and that your approach offers NONE OF THAT. Yes, quite a nice little meaningless existence you got goin' there. vewy niiice! You go ahead and work out your math problems that govern our reality mr. man -- and I'll try to work out the reality that combined they create. btw, you do realise you're a biochemist - hoping to uncover how the cerebral cortex gives rise to cognition -- and that you’re using a test tube and a bunsen burder!! -- and no cerebral cortex! and evidently NO COGNITION neither. :P
So.. dood.. get one - and use it!! .. yeah, and be sure use it before you perform any experiments on it btw.. Okaay, I'm glad we had that talk.
:P -?
cont...
enjoy.
You do not frighten me, mister tuff guy, with your big mooscles and your big thighs and your huuuge post. I await your onslaught. Show me the money, sweetcheeks.
Oh.. the bitter irony. :P -?
Nicodemus, much of it is 'lost' -- for·evar.. Teh Christianity god stole it from my computer perhaps?? I DON'T KNOW what happened to it. I don't know..
All I have left is this part - it's the last part of it which I saved to my e-mail acct from work. Fortunately - it is also the 'best' and most irreplaceable piece of it.. as it contains an ''imaginary'' dialogue between myself and Richard Dawkins - (and Stephen Gould as well). Man.. I put them in their place!! real talk..
In many ways it is the most surreal/cereal/completely insane part.. -but strangely it is also the most lucid.. go figure. :P
:D -?
[...] So the Christian fundies seem to possess the proclivity that gives them a distinct advantage over the rigid-reasoning process of their adversaries. Yes, the id proponents have developed a capacity to think 'out-side' teh box.. yes, they have! .. It really kind of makes ya feel sorry for the men and women of science, doesn't it? Those poor - out-witted guardians of reason and methodical thinking.. The scientists have accumulated arsenals of knowledge and know-how -- but have not a clue.
The Christians have NO FACTS, NO LOGIC, NO BRAINS -- but, their 'intuition' is GOD LIKE. The scientists on the other hand have 'all' the facts at their disposal - and they have ALL the facts - on 'their' side!! And they are supposed to be 'specialists' in every discipline of problem solving -- and yet they are still subjected to such PWniNGs of this severity! :rolleyes: -? .. :D -?
In this debate he only effective tactic available to the proponents of Id is to spread confusion and obfuscate. Fortunately (for them) sowing confusion and obfuscating the obvious, are the most potent tools in any debate. And the scientists left themselves wide open to this tactic - they are not playing effective defense -- cuz they don't understand the game!
.. Yeah, so the Christians have picked up a thing or two about the language of science -- and a thing or two is all they needed to to completely put the scientist on the back foot. They have appropriated some the most commonly used terms associated with science - and of course these same ones that are required to describe the core essence of their discipline. And Christians are focusing their efforts on the one word that embodies the defining the attributes of the scientific 'theory' - (i.e. ''theory'' :D -? ).
By misusing a word you can distort it's potential for clarity - i.e. you can undermine it's power to bring the concept into sharp focus. The scientists have left themselves vulnerable to word manipulation, since this word 'theory' that the scientists have as the foundation for their whole enterprise, is really kind of broad in scope (!) :rolleyes: -? It doesn't really have a narrow or sharply defined focus - so who's going to take notice when or if someone blurs it by misrepresentation (?) The scientists will take notice - since they are the ones who are most familiar with the image it conveys.. But aside from them - who else is really going to percieve a word going from 'broad' to 'blurry'..? -?
Come on wake up ppl!! They are blurring very concepts that you've use to build your every endeavour! They are polluting the clarity of everything you've ever done! Come on get wit it!! Get some more words together!! MORE WORDS = YOUR VERY SURVIVAL!! :roflmoa: <- he only laff cuz it tru you kno. :P
..okay, speaking of words . how am doing here? I have exceeded my 32 P&R word limit? srsly.. uh.. oh.. can I borrow a few :D -? Hey! Brillig let me borrow some words man! Come on.. you don't ''really'' need them do you? Come on man - cus I 'really' do -(..like really, really). Yo' TimJ help a brother out -? Okay, I'll take some on loan then.. -Yep, I'm in word debt.. deep, deep.. real talk. <-- w/ 'real' words!! :eek: ! :D :beer:
where.was.I.. oh, yeah.
So yo' .. why don't you wake up - and think out side the box for once Mr. Dawkins.? No wonder you remain so oblivious to so many 'obvious' things all around you! You don't value your words enough! What do you even think this whole reality thing is all about - if not words? :P -? ..Dood, get a clue. for real..
.. Man, you 'really' think words are 'just' some ''artificial'' construct that acts as a 'barrier' between us and the ''absolute'' ?? .. you 'reeeeaally' think that? jesus - you ppl are really lost for real - all hung up on teh math - and no appreciation or awareness of the real - i.e. the ''surreal.''
Dawkins.. dood, math is only gonna give you the foundation.. it's not going to tell you what exists 'above' it. And do you know 'how' I know this? It is because I'm ''certifiably insane'' -- and while I'm not denying that! .. I am thinking that some of it is 'true' .. and henceforth I am also saying that 'you' are w/o a clue - regarding the 'essence' of it all.
All that searching.. all that hoping for ''the grand unified theory'' of ''everything'' to bring it all together.. dood, is an equation going to impart any 'meaning' to the universe? NO. <-- .. That's why we evolved ''lang'ua'ge'' .. say it with me; 'lng·gwj' .. lang·wijjah'' btw, that's something called 'pho ne tiks' = ‘word’ of mouth. real talk.
If not for language you'd never be able to think about anything abstractly or coherently enough to even solve for your unknowns and balance your equations.. Come on man!! You need to use teh interchangeable ‘symbol’ IN PLACE of NUMBERS to do your math!! What does this tell you about the necessity and essence of 'symbol' -?.. Hel-oooo?! .. Yeah, but to you words are “but an 'approximation'” - just an artificial construct to artificially describe the artificial aspects of the world. It never even occurred to you that 'we' invented 'words' to comprehend abstract relationships - and discover the 'meaning' of them - and that your approach offers NONE OF THAT. Yes, quite a nice little meaningless existence you got goin' there. vewy niiice! You go ahead and work out your math problems that govern our reality mr. man -- and I'll try to work out the reality that combined they create. btw, you do realise you're a biochemist - hoping to uncover how the cerebral cortex gives rise to cognition -- and that you’re using a test tube and a bunsen burder!! -- and no cerebral cortex! and evidently NO COGNITION neither. :P
So.. dood.. get one - and use it!! .. yeah, and be sure use it before you perform any experiments on it btw.. Okaay, I'm glad we had that talk.
:P -?
cont...
red house
Okay Mr. Dawkins, and Mr. Gould. pls, listen up for the last time you half-wit half-brain-dead dumbasses.. <--[yeah sorry ppl.. I couldn't help it.. srsly]..[/silver] :D -?
Mr. Dawkins.. actually I'm thru with you. You may go now. No, you may go.. Dood, becz you're dense! - it's like having a discussion with an idiot savante Rain.. yeah, dood I'm actually a very good speller, I'm just not a great performer -- all the time --- but I give myself license to do what-ever I want. myword. <--there 'you' see? .Myne. real talk. And talking of 'my'-word .. I want you to go away now.. I feel like I m teaching Rain Man's [color=silver][edited]ed brother why tom cruise is a ****ing re[edited] . I don't know, I just don't know why the rain man was willing to just give his [edited]ed brother assets from their dad's estate?? :D -? Yeah.. we all know what happened to that estate... don;t have to be a rain man to figure that out..
dood.. is gettin this posted on teh netz man.. goota move .. gotta move.
Okay.. yo! J Gould?! Dood, paying attn?.. Yo, man I'M GETTING TO THE GOOD part!! Good part -- okay, this is the part where you want to pay attn! right here. Man I don't care about - After-life/no afterlife -- that's entiiirely nother topic.. -for u and me 'our' purposes, -- entirely dffnt TOPIC! not goona goin there. Yeah, YOU don't believe in an afterlife and hear - we're not having this discussion. word? kewwl. ‘word’ - I gots one for ya.. ‘out-side’ teh box. Not like ‘way’ out side it..no. Not that far at all. out side the box..x.x.x.x I was getting to that...
^^Ah.. guess what? I writed it already! It's all·read·y. :beer: .. Must insert more emotionicons tho!!! :D NEEDS MORE!!! :P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay Jay-G. check it;
Think, “out-side-the box” solution: Outside solution --> Change the spelling of the word 'theory' .. Create a new word. It can be done, we have the technology. Okay.. you inquirin; precisely - how is this done ? ..
First, the very easy part. We already know the ‘name’ (the pronunciashyun) of our newborn entity - we just need a new spelling for it. So we formulate a new spelling. Yeah.. really it doesn’t have to be that deep - unless we want make it so. So,, let’s make it so!!
I'd suggest altering the spelling by ‘removing’ a vowel from the parent word. Why ‘remove’ a vowel - instead of adding additional ones? I’m choosing to ‘remove’ a vowel/letter mainly for ‘symbolic’ reasons - since the next necessary step of this process will be to -->narrow<-- the definition of the parental clone - so that the new word will be both distinct from the parent and so it’ll fit the needs of it’s intended purpose as well.. Also, vowels are usually just the ‘spice’ in the phonemic essence of the word, they are often dispensable - and a word like ‘theory’ is already flavoured with more than enough of them.
Yeah, that’s right! - it’s always good to conserve your vowels ppl!! .. --> Tell that to teh British :{ .. Yeah for real! **** teh British!! And **** teh French too - and **** their over-protective linguistic possessiveness. While they are busy brain-washing ppl into thinking that their vernacular is the “linguistically superior standard” - we can get busy redefining their language for our own more needs.. and ‘we’ need versatility and flexibility!! Let them keep their statuesque sentence structures and obsessive phonetic compulsions -- cuz we’ve already improved on their recipes - we’ve invented versions that live, versions that mature and adapt to the surroundings! Dood, come on. real talk.. So long as meaning is retained and it is universally understood by those it is intended for; The living growing enriched language is always > than some prescribed linguistic stagnations set in stone.. So, pay no mind to the prim&properness of teh British language overlords!! (*cough* teh J. Monkeys of the world *koff* :P ) .. no, pay them no mind! .. Abusus - NON TOLLIT USUM!! ..
Their ‘proper’ Language is also changing right from under them as well - they are simply in denial that this is taking place.. They find ‘comfort’ in the notion that their mode of expression has an “incorruptible consistency” ! .. They are clinging to a tongue that hates new varieties of flavor! A tongue that rejects ‘any’ alteration of the recipes. A tongue that never ages and acquires new tastes. How boring is that?
--------------
cont... (due to excess emoticon - 10 per/post)
Mr. Dawkins.. actually I'm thru with you. You may go now. No, you may go.. Dood, becz you're dense! - it's like having a discussion with an idiot savante Rain.. yeah, dood I'm actually a very good speller, I'm just not a great performer -- all the time --- but I give myself license to do what-ever I want. myword. <--there 'you' see? .Myne. real talk. And talking of 'my'-word .. I want you to go away now.. I feel like I m teaching Rain Man's [color=silver][edited]ed brother why tom cruise is a ****ing re[edited] . I don't know, I just don't know why the rain man was willing to just give his [edited]ed brother assets from their dad's estate?? :D -? Yeah.. we all know what happened to that estate... don;t have to be a rain man to figure that out..
dood.. is gettin this posted on teh netz man.. goota move .. gotta move.
Okay.. yo! J Gould?! Dood, paying attn?.. Yo, man I'M GETTING TO THE GOOD part!! Good part -- okay, this is the part where you want to pay attn! right here. Man I don't care about - After-life/no afterlife -- that's entiiirely nother topic.. -for u and me 'our' purposes, -- entirely dffnt TOPIC! not goona goin there. Yeah, YOU don't believe in an afterlife and hear - we're not having this discussion. word? kewwl. ‘word’ - I gots one for ya.. ‘out-side’ teh box. Not like ‘way’ out side it..no. Not that far at all. out side the box..x.x.x.x I was getting to that...
^^Ah.. guess what? I writed it already! It's all·read·y. :beer: .. Must insert more emotionicons tho!!! :D NEEDS MORE!!! :P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay Jay-G. check it;
Think, “out-side-the box” solution: Outside solution --> Change the spelling of the word 'theory' .. Create a new word. It can be done, we have the technology. Okay.. you inquirin; precisely - how is this done ? ..
First, the very easy part. We already know the ‘name’ (the pronunciashyun) of our newborn entity - we just need a new spelling for it. So we formulate a new spelling. Yeah.. really it doesn’t have to be that deep - unless we want make it so. So,, let’s make it so!!
I'd suggest altering the spelling by ‘removing’ a vowel from the parent word. Why ‘remove’ a vowel - instead of adding additional ones? I’m choosing to ‘remove’ a vowel/letter mainly for ‘symbolic’ reasons - since the next necessary step of this process will be to -->narrow<-- the definition of the parental clone - so that the new word will be both distinct from the parent and so it’ll fit the needs of it’s intended purpose as well.. Also, vowels are usually just the ‘spice’ in the phonemic essence of the word, they are often dispensable - and a word like ‘theory’ is already flavoured with more than enough of them.
Yeah, that’s right! - it’s always good to conserve your vowels ppl!! .. --> Tell that to teh British :{ .. Yeah for real! **** teh British!! And **** teh French too - and **** their over-protective linguistic possessiveness. While they are busy brain-washing ppl into thinking that their vernacular is the “linguistically superior standard” - we can get busy redefining their language for our own more needs.. and ‘we’ need versatility and flexibility!! Let them keep their statuesque sentence structures and obsessive phonetic compulsions -- cuz we’ve already improved on their recipes - we’ve invented versions that live, versions that mature and adapt to the surroundings! Dood, come on. real talk.. So long as meaning is retained and it is universally understood by those it is intended for; The living growing enriched language is always > than some prescribed linguistic stagnations set in stone.. So, pay no mind to the prim&properness of teh British language overlords!! (*cough* teh J. Monkeys of the world *koff* :P ) .. no, pay them no mind! .. Abusus - NON TOLLIT USUM!! ..
Their ‘proper’ Language is also changing right from under them as well - they are simply in denial that this is taking place.. They find ‘comfort’ in the notion that their mode of expression has an “incorruptible consistency” ! .. They are clinging to a tongue that hates new varieties of flavor! A tongue that rejects ‘any’ alteration of the recipes. A tongue that never ages and acquires new tastes. How boring is that?
--------------
cont... (due to excess emoticon - 10 per/post)
red house
Okay .. Back to track. We will remove a vowel - (which anyways, is really the only option here if we want to make our new word pho·ne·tik·lee the same as ‘theory’).. Okay, vowel extraction..
Done: THORY .. :beer:
.. Now with the spelling out of the way we can put 'thory' under hypno·synonosis so it can identify with this character over here --> 'f a c t' .. okay you two, time to hook up teh mind-meld!! :D . .Of course being that this is teh land of total trippyness - it’s sometimes fun to state the obvious in a not so obvious way. But yeah.. surrealness or no; It goes without saying that even after ascribing the attributes of 'fact' --> on and into 't h o r y' - it still takes a lot of usage before the definition will have hardened in place.. And since we're not exactly going to be submitting this word for admittance into the Oxford English dictionary to be ascribe in indelible ink .. since I'm not gonna be entrusting these (potentially) invaluable newborn l·tt·rs-[infused- w/meaning] - to those 0xford english nazis(!) - I will have to let it lose into the public domain and hope for the best.
I’ll put it out on the internets to make it available for the use of others and I’ll save it to my own vocabulary for possible future use.. But of course once it’s placed on the web - it will be on its own, it no longer is mine alone and ppl will be free to do with it as they like.
**ppl; pls don't make mis-use of it, thx. :beer:
Obviously only a tiny fraction of these novellē conceived words are ever put to use of any kind. And ‘thory’ will have to take its chances like all the rest. (*btw, note I said “its” -- it is gender 'neutral', {-becz I said so..}).
Okay.. by now I think the meaning has settled in place..
By the way, I think it really does help if you take time to ‘imagine’ and describe this process of blending the newly assembled letters with teh meaning it represents. Every word is instantly recognisable by its phonemic flavor (determined by the arrangement syllables and letters) - but it’s how much the phonemic fingerprint is colored by the characteristics that shape the ‘concept’ underlying it - that determine it’s potency and significance to the person using it. Taking time to visualise and describe how this takes place will help your word attain it's “multi-dimensional shape” and sensory attribute(s). It will give your word character and personality that will bring vibrancy to the conceptual nature of the word and will also help bring life to the surrounding context. An ‘lexical’ word, (a noun, verb or adjective) is usually not of any use by itself - existing as an lone self-contained unit with its ‘own’ specific meaning .. Noo! of course not!! Reality is only rarely understood by describing its component pieces in isolation - without having to relate how they fit with together with other parts and pieces! They are merely particles with descriptive contours, they need to be molded together to reveal ‘meaning’ - they are combined to convey the cohesiveness in the ‘pattern’ - to provide perceptible form to the ‘meaning’. Words are just parts assembled to illustrate a whole- whole that is not equivalent to the divisible sum of its parts.
A word like evolution represents a concept that is comprised of several layers of other words and concepts. Combined they form a definition with resolution and bring completeness to the meaning. Being an intricately layered concept - there countless ways its specificity can be shaped and refined depending on the context it is paired with. But remove a layer that is integral to defining its essence and the concept becomes incomplete - which can generate a different meaning altogether or a fragmented concept that is scattered without any kind resolution or meaningful way to piece it together.
Words embody ‘layered’ concepts. The essence of any descriptive word is dependent on layers of the other words and concepts used to define (either by an associative properties - or by representing an integral component of the concept). Conceptual layers of meaning - and the sensations they provoke is what makes a word ‘real’ .. To put it another way; the more ‘feeling’ and the more ‘depth of meaning’ that a word is able to evoke, the more vividly it will allow its user to experience and understand whatever facet of reality it was meant to embody (in the case of the abstract - by allowing us to encode that aspect of reality with a conceptual image that is orderly and complete. (And of of course it also allows us to share and convey these experiences with others)..
And layered “3 dimensional” meaning and sensory associations help us to recognise the concept or description of a word - in place of simply receiving it’s typed font or phonetic form whenever you encounter or make use of it. These are the qualities give words their power and determine whether they will be easily manipulated -- or set in stone, whether they will be essential to the clarity to the broader thought-concept that they are a part of - or whether they will be expendable to it’s central meaning. It is the multidimensional attributes that allows the ear to process the same phonetic signals - but distinguish the context - and recognise them for their unique and distinct identity (which they will each retain by virtue unique spelling). We definitely want the conceptual shape to of a word like 'thory' - to be well defined!! (while retaining some sense of phonetic ambiguity at the same time).. They will be like cousins with easily distinguishable faces - but whom each answer to the same name. Hopefully this will be enough to subvert and confuse the broad minded semantic tactics of those anti-Darwins! :D :beer:
Okay.. since this is the 'english' language - I was afforded the luxury of keeping the actually sound of my choicest vowels 'optional' .. My vowel preference for this word is 'thorie' -- (btw, we'll get to the reason in a bit..) .. but of course it will still be pronounced; theer-ee - like its donor clone.
Okay.. very nice. All the pieces are in place;
WELCOME .. to the VERSIÓN INTERNATIONAL of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. :beer:
..may your life be long and filled with lots of (constant and specific) meaning. :beer:
[B]tho·ry .. thē·ər·ē [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
-noun, plural -ries
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in thory.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a thory.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather thories about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The thories given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, thories. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of thory, question of law.
—Idioms
6. after the thory, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the thory.
7. before the thory, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the thory.
8. in thory, actually; really; indeed: In thory, it was a wonder that anyone survived.
[Origin: rh 2008 thory <theory < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3 ]
..and yeah, it's another hella long post by rh -- but I just added a word to the english language -- and possibly single handedly handed a swift and decisive victory of this battle to the Darwinian Crusaders. (that is - if they grow a brain, which they won't..) <-- :D :P
so what the hell have you ppl done w/ yours? ..
Hey, win any arguments yet?! :D -? :beer:
..
Done: THORY .. :beer:
.. Now with the spelling out of the way we can put 'thory' under hypno·synonosis so it can identify with this character over here --> 'f a c t' .. okay you two, time to hook up teh mind-meld!! :D . .Of course being that this is teh land of total trippyness - it’s sometimes fun to state the obvious in a not so obvious way. But yeah.. surrealness or no; It goes without saying that even after ascribing the attributes of 'fact' --> on and into 't h o r y' - it still takes a lot of usage before the definition will have hardened in place.. And since we're not exactly going to be submitting this word for admittance into the Oxford English dictionary to be ascribe in indelible ink .. since I'm not gonna be entrusting these (potentially) invaluable newborn l·tt·rs-[infused- w/meaning] - to those 0xford english nazis(!) - I will have to let it lose into the public domain and hope for the best.
I’ll put it out on the internets to make it available for the use of others and I’ll save it to my own vocabulary for possible future use.. But of course once it’s placed on the web - it will be on its own, it no longer is mine alone and ppl will be free to do with it as they like.
**ppl; pls don't make mis-use of it, thx. :beer:
Obviously only a tiny fraction of these novellē conceived words are ever put to use of any kind. And ‘thory’ will have to take its chances like all the rest. (*btw, note I said “its” -- it is gender 'neutral', {-becz I said so..}).
Okay.. by now I think the meaning has settled in place..
By the way, I think it really does help if you take time to ‘imagine’ and describe this process of blending the newly assembled letters with teh meaning it represents. Every word is instantly recognisable by its phonemic flavor (determined by the arrangement syllables and letters) - but it’s how much the phonemic fingerprint is colored by the characteristics that shape the ‘concept’ underlying it - that determine it’s potency and significance to the person using it. Taking time to visualise and describe how this takes place will help your word attain it's “multi-dimensional shape” and sensory attribute(s). It will give your word character and personality that will bring vibrancy to the conceptual nature of the word and will also help bring life to the surrounding context. An ‘lexical’ word, (a noun, verb or adjective) is usually not of any use by itself - existing as an lone self-contained unit with its ‘own’ specific meaning .. Noo! of course not!! Reality is only rarely understood by describing its component pieces in isolation - without having to relate how they fit with together with other parts and pieces! They are merely particles with descriptive contours, they need to be molded together to reveal ‘meaning’ - they are combined to convey the cohesiveness in the ‘pattern’ - to provide perceptible form to the ‘meaning’. Words are just parts assembled to illustrate a whole- whole that is not equivalent to the divisible sum of its parts.
A word like evolution represents a concept that is comprised of several layers of other words and concepts. Combined they form a definition with resolution and bring completeness to the meaning. Being an intricately layered concept - there countless ways its specificity can be shaped and refined depending on the context it is paired with. But remove a layer that is integral to defining its essence and the concept becomes incomplete - which can generate a different meaning altogether or a fragmented concept that is scattered without any kind resolution or meaningful way to piece it together.
Words embody ‘layered’ concepts. The essence of any descriptive word is dependent on layers of the other words and concepts used to define (either by an associative properties - or by representing an integral component of the concept). Conceptual layers of meaning - and the sensations they provoke is what makes a word ‘real’ .. To put it another way; the more ‘feeling’ and the more ‘depth of meaning’ that a word is able to evoke, the more vividly it will allow its user to experience and understand whatever facet of reality it was meant to embody (in the case of the abstract - by allowing us to encode that aspect of reality with a conceptual image that is orderly and complete. (And of of course it also allows us to share and convey these experiences with others)..
And layered “3 dimensional” meaning and sensory associations help us to recognise the concept or description of a word - in place of simply receiving it’s typed font or phonetic form whenever you encounter or make use of it. These are the qualities give words their power and determine whether they will be easily manipulated -- or set in stone, whether they will be essential to the clarity to the broader thought-concept that they are a part of - or whether they will be expendable to it’s central meaning. It is the multidimensional attributes that allows the ear to process the same phonetic signals - but distinguish the context - and recognise them for their unique and distinct identity (which they will each retain by virtue unique spelling). We definitely want the conceptual shape to of a word like 'thory' - to be well defined!! (while retaining some sense of phonetic ambiguity at the same time).. They will be like cousins with easily distinguishable faces - but whom each answer to the same name. Hopefully this will be enough to subvert and confuse the broad minded semantic tactics of those anti-Darwins! :D :beer:
Okay.. since this is the 'english' language - I was afforded the luxury of keeping the actually sound of my choicest vowels 'optional' .. My vowel preference for this word is 'thorie' -- (btw, we'll get to the reason in a bit..) .. but of course it will still be pronounced; theer-ee - like its donor clone.
Okay.. very nice. All the pieces are in place;
WELCOME .. to the VERSIÓN INTERNATIONAL of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. :beer:
..may your life be long and filled with lots of (constant and specific) meaning. :beer:
[B]tho·ry .. thē·ər·ē [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
-noun, plural -ries
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in thory.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a thory.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather thories about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The thories given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, thories. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of thory, question of law.
—Idioms
6. after the thory, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the thory.
7. before the thory, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the thory.
8. in thory, actually; really; indeed: In thory, it was a wonder that anyone survived.
[Origin: rh 2008 thory <theory < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3 ]
..and yeah, it's another hella long post by rh -- but I just added a word to the english language -- and possibly single handedly handed a swift and decisive victory of this battle to the Darwinian Crusaders. (that is - if they grow a brain, which they won't..) <-- :D :P
so what the hell have you ppl done w/ yours? ..
Hey, win any arguments yet?! :D -? :beer:
..
Brillig
He isn't comfortable with science. He believes science leads to killing people.
+1000
:beer:
+1000
:beer:
TRaffic Jammer
When you take his words from an interview where his context is the Holocaust in regards to the out of Context words of Darwin...um, well, yea. In other interviews he's much more moderate. He wrote a great column..(I'll see if I can find it) about how we ourselves asked for, and received, our current levels of Godless-ness. Stein is too smart a man for thinking science leads to killing people. He can think around corners, and grok both sides of a good debate.
red house
When you take his words from an interview where his context is the Holocaust in regards to the out of Context words of Darwin...um, well, yea. In other interviews he's much more moderate. He wrote a great column..(I'll see if I can find it) about how we ourselves asked for, and received, our current levels of Godless-ness. Stein is too smart a man for thinking science leads to killing people. He can think around corners, and grok both sides of a good debate.
Perhaps.. but he can't out-think me...
^^ so really, what good is he? .. (cuz, srsly.. I'm not that smart... I'm just certifiably insane) .. :) :beer:
btw, Ben Stein is actually quite dense (fyi) .. He couldn't think his way out of a Japanese house of paper walls and bamboo supports - if it caught fire with him inside it. He's just really not 'that' bright... a waste of a perfectly good brain just set to dull, never made to hone a sharp point.
Perhaps.. but he can't out-think me...
^^ so really, what good is he? .. (cuz, srsly.. I'm not that smart... I'm just certifiably insane) .. :) :beer:
btw, Ben Stein is actually quite dense (fyi) .. He couldn't think his way out of a Japanese house of paper walls and bamboo supports - if it caught fire with him inside it. He's just really not 'that' bright... a waste of a perfectly good brain just set to dull, never made to hone a sharp point.
late
[QUOTE=late;6607532]Science is done by scientists. I know, I'm a radical..
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
QUOTE]
Evolution, technically by any scientific text book definition, is a very solid hypothesis.... and, only that.
It is one of the most powerful scientific theories in history. The bottom line, so to
speak, for a theory is it's productivity. In that regard, it may be without equal.
If you want to argue the point, be my guest.
third, I didn't hear anything about testable hypotheses
QUOTE]
Evolution, technically by any scientific text book definition, is a very solid hypothesis.... and, only that.
It is one of the most powerful scientific theories in history. The bottom line, so to
speak, for a theory is it's productivity. In that regard, it may be without equal.
If you want to argue the point, be my guest.
cooker
The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust.
Earliest 'Godwin'ing of a thread yet.
Earliest 'Godwin'ing of a thread yet.
red house
Yeah.. Darwin Posse representin in teh hzoussse!!
Where did all you trick-talkin darwin-dissers run of to?
TRaffic Jammer, twobikes, BikePackin ? .. you're freedoms of ''education'' are under fire - time to stand a post.. and man up, in't it?
You ppl afraid to confront an ancient 136 year old ''theory'' - with 136 years of antiquated evidence and untestedable-logik to back it up? .. come on, we don't bite. We just represent and make you repent - make you look 'sorry' for subscribing to sorrry thoughts and silly arguments.
what you have to fear from that?
Where did all you trick-talkin darwin-dissers run of to?
TRaffic Jammer, twobikes, BikePackin ? .. you're freedoms of ''education'' are under fire - time to stand a post.. and man up, in't it?
You ppl afraid to confront an ancient 136 year old ''theory'' - with 136 years of antiquated evidence and untestedable-logik to back it up? .. come on, we don't bite. We just represent and make you repent - make you look 'sorry' for subscribing to sorrry thoughts and silly arguments.
what you have to fear from that?
TRaffic Jammer
well I'm not dissin' Darwin at all actually, I'm a subscriber... but as theory is not fact, then discussion can still exist even to the *shutter* Creationists. To be a dual devil's advocate, you know someone will trot out where did the Power for Evolution come from. I had a buddy in HS who became a Jesuit Priest, we used to debate this stuff constantly... I swear if I hear 'because it's God's will' one more time I'll scream ...:lol:
Just as I oppose religious based education... I do think a curriculum of comparative religious education can't be a bad thing to show the parallels between religions and that most speak of the same god. Dog forbid kids are allowed to make informed choices, about how they wish to pursue life and spirituality/or not. How many Christian kids know that Muslims believe in the same God? I feel to have kids in a Catholic school system growing up thing that everyone else not a Catholic is going to hell is a terrible thing, because not all catholic kids have only catholic friends. I've seem little kids get quite upset at this concept.
... Move to Quebec or live in the States? :lol: Quebec rocks it man...find somewhere unpleasant Red House.
Just as I oppose religious based education... I do think a curriculum of comparative religious education can't be a bad thing to show the parallels between religions and that most speak of the same god. Dog forbid kids are allowed to make informed choices, about how they wish to pursue life and spirituality/or not. How many Christian kids know that Muslims believe in the same God? I feel to have kids in a Catholic school system growing up thing that everyone else not a Catholic is going to hell is a terrible thing, because not all catholic kids have only catholic friends. I've seem little kids get quite upset at this concept.
... Move to Quebec or live in the States? :lol: Quebec rocks it man...find somewhere unpleasant Red House.
red house
well I'm not dissin' Darwin at all actually, I'm a subscriber... but as theory is not fact, then discussion can still exist even to the *shutter* Creationists. To be a dual devil's advocate, you know someone will trot out where did the Power for Evolution come from. I had a buddy in HS who became a Jesuit Priest, we used to debate this stuff constantly... I swear if I hear 'because it's God's will' one more time I'll scream ...:lol:
okay, fair enough.. I was just confused because of what you said earlier - that Ben Stein was a 'smart' man of faith who who is also 'comfortable' with science. You know.. you saying that about a man who just made a documentary that attempts to discredit a scientific set of principles that probably have more evidence to support them than any other scientific ''theory'' in existence, so that the unscientifically astute general public might be mislead into believing that an alternative 'theory' (with absolutely no solid evidence to back it) - is somehow more credible than Darwinism... led me to think that somehow you may have had your doubts about the darwinian origins of species as well.
So.. which is it? Either you have your doubts about Ben Steins premise, or you have your doubts about 'evolution' .. it's an either/or proposition. Unless you're ''undecided'' - in which case you have your doubts about both... and are just thoroughly confused. :B -?
okay, fair enough.. I was just confused because of what you said earlier - that Ben Stein was a 'smart' man of faith who who is also 'comfortable' with science. You know.. you saying that about a man who just made a documentary that attempts to discredit a scientific set of principles that probably have more evidence to support them than any other scientific ''theory'' in existence, so that the unscientifically astute general public might be mislead into believing that an alternative 'theory' (with absolutely no solid evidence to back it) - is somehow more credible than Darwinism... led me to think that somehow you may have had your doubts about the darwinian origins of species as well.
So.. which is it? Either you have your doubts about Ben Steins premise, or you have your doubts about 'evolution' .. it's an either/or proposition. Unless you're ''undecided'' - in which case you have your doubts about both... and are just thoroughly confused. :B -?
Brillig
Dog forbid kids are allowed to make informed choices, about how they wish to pursue life and spirituality/or not.
It's generally a good thing to present those choices to kids, but it's an absolutely awful idea to have schools doing that.
Teach your kids about spirituality at home and at church because no matter how you try to sanitize it, you are passing on spiritual/religious values. Just in deciding which religions to expose them too (even which religions you consider religions at all) and what kind of positive or negative sheen you put on them.
It's generally a good thing to present those choices to kids, but it's an absolutely awful idea to have schools doing that.
Teach your kids about spirituality at home and at church because no matter how you try to sanitize it, you are passing on spiritual/religious values. Just in deciding which religions to expose them too (even which religions you consider religions at all) and what kind of positive or negative sheen you put on them.
benjdm
When you take his words from an interview where his context is the Holocaust in regards to the out of Context words of Darwin...um, well, yea. In other interviews he's much more moderate. He wrote a great column..(I'll see if I can find it) about how we ourselves asked for, and received, our current levels of Godless-ness. Stein is too smart a man for thinking science leads to killing people. He can think around corners, and grok both sides of a good debate.
If you think I took things out of context, please point out from the video preceding or succeeding context that I should have left in. He said many other things that sounded really bad out of context that I did NOT transcribe because in context they made at least some sense. (For example, he talked about how it didn't matter that ID failed so spectacularly at the Dover trial because court rulings don't matter. As he expounded on what he meant, he explained that court rulings don't determine right and wrong, which I would agree with.)
The reason I think he was so much less guarded in this interview is because he was speaking to such a religiously friendly audience.
If you think I took things out of context, please point out from the video preceding or succeeding context that I should have left in. He said many other things that sounded really bad out of context that I did NOT transcribe because in context they made at least some sense. (For example, he talked about how it didn't matter that ID failed so spectacularly at the Dover trial because court rulings don't matter. As he expounded on what he meant, he explained that court rulings don't determine right and wrong, which I would agree with.)
The reason I think he was so much less guarded in this interview is because he was speaking to such a religiously friendly audience.
Brillig
Please keep in mind that he didn't write this movie, he was simply hired as the narrator.
KrisPistofferson
Please keep in mind that he didn't write this movie, he was simply hired as the narrator.Also keep in mind he's not a scientist, and despite whatever level of genius got him into working for Nixon before he was impeached, he has been a b-movie actor and game show host for the last 30 years. This apparently carries a lot of weight.
Brillig
Please keep in mind that he didn't write this movie, he was simply hired as the narrator.
Woops. I take that back. Apparently he is listed as a co-writer.
Woops. I take that back. Apparently he is listed as a co-writer.
KrisPistofferson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc
Funny piece from the BBC about the Cretin Museum. God, how humiliating.
Funny piece from the BBC about the Cretin Museum. God, how humiliating.
red house
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc
Funny piece from the BBC about the Cretin Museum. God, how humiliating.
That chic (with the green shirt and the apron) - the one putting the finishing touches on the sheep .. she was highly pleasurable to look at. Bet she's dumb as a rock too. :beer:
Funny piece from the BBC about the Cretin Museum. God, how humiliating.
That chic (with the green shirt and the apron) - the one putting the finishing touches on the sheep .. she was highly pleasurable to look at. Bet she's dumb as a rock too. :beer:
red house
Where did all the doubters go?
Keith99
Contrary to the previous comment, I saw the movie last evening and would not say it is a propaganda piece. It shows how academia supposedly champions open inquiry and the pursuit of truth, but limits acceptable truth to its own predetermined orthodoxy. This has resulted in the dismissal of scientists with excellent credentials who just happened to notice that Darwinism does not adequately explain life. Although not mentioned in the film, I thought about Galileo being forced by the Pope to deny what he saw in his telescope. The modern scientific community would be quick to condemn that Pope and the Church of that day, yet the members of today's scientific and academic communities are doing the same thing today with anyone who questions the place of evolution.
The movie does not go into specific problems for evolution, like Robert Gentry's study of radio halos. Google Gentry or radio halos for more information. But, it challenges evolution's self-appointed acceptance as the only truth. The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust. This is something people do not always realize, but the film does a very good job of making the connection. It also starkly asks what is left of human life after evolution pries away from someone a belief in God, then a belief in life after death, followed by no basis for ethical behavior and no free will.
I heard Glenn Beck discussing the film on his radio program as a "stand up and cheer" event. But, I had already read most of the things I heard and saw in the film, so it really was not new ground for me. It would be an eye opener for many people and deserves to be viewed on a large scale.
Bolding mine. Yes I'm a prig about stuff like that, unlike the producers of this film.
Already it has been well documented that many if not most of the scientists who the film claims lost positions in fact never held the positions it claims they lost! Any real scientist knows that Darwin never claimed his Theories explained where life came from. That is an issue outside the scope of the Theory. Anyone seeing that as a problem with Darwins Theory has reveiled himself as lacking scientific knowledge or honor (or both). It is like finding fault with Galileo or Newton because their theories do not deal with the propigation of Gravity or Light. Utter rubish.
In point of fact Darwinism or even real Social Darwinism has little to do with the Holocaust. One can make a bit of a case regarding the 'defectives' but that has nothing to do with Jews, Gypsies or Slavs. The decision that they are inferior comes from other sources and it is easy to document the thread of that thought, often a very wide thread, within the Christian Church.
Oh and just how is Yoko's lawsuit for copyright infringement going? Didn't see anything in this thread on that issue.
The movie does not go into specific problems for evolution, like Robert Gentry's study of radio halos. Google Gentry or radio halos for more information. But, it challenges evolution's self-appointed acceptance as the only truth. The film also traces the undeniable cornerstone place of Darwin's thought in the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust. This is something people do not always realize, but the film does a very good job of making the connection. It also starkly asks what is left of human life after evolution pries away from someone a belief in God, then a belief in life after death, followed by no basis for ethical behavior and no free will.
I heard Glenn Beck discussing the film on his radio program as a "stand up and cheer" event. But, I had already read most of the things I heard and saw in the film, so it really was not new ground for me. It would be an eye opener for many people and deserves to be viewed on a large scale.
Bolding mine. Yes I'm a prig about stuff like that, unlike the producers of this film.
Already it has been well documented that many if not most of the scientists who the film claims lost positions in fact never held the positions it claims they lost! Any real scientist knows that Darwin never claimed his Theories explained where life came from. That is an issue outside the scope of the Theory. Anyone seeing that as a problem with Darwins Theory has reveiled himself as lacking scientific knowledge or honor (or both). It is like finding fault with Galileo or Newton because their theories do not deal with the propigation of Gravity or Light. Utter rubish.
In point of fact Darwinism or even real Social Darwinism has little to do with the Holocaust. One can make a bit of a case regarding the 'defectives' but that has nothing to do with Jews, Gypsies or Slavs. The decision that they are inferior comes from other sources and it is easy to document the thread of that thought, often a very wide thread, within the Christian Church.
Oh and just how is Yoko's lawsuit for copyright infringement going? Didn't see anything in this thread on that issue.
Mr York
Oh and just how is Yoko's lawsuit for copyright infringement going? Didn't see anything in this thread on that issue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSN2320158220080423
NEW YORK (Reuters) - John Lennon's sons and widow, Yoko Ono, are suing the filmmakers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for using the song "Imagine" in the documentary without permission.
Lennon recorded the song in 1971 and in 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked it No. 3 on their list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, according to the lawsuit.
Ono, her son Sean Ono Lennon, and Julian Lennon, John Lennon's son from his first marriage, along with privately held publisher EMI Blackwood Music Inc filed suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking to bar the filmmakers and their distributors from continuing to use "Imagine" in the movie.
They are also seeking unspecified damages.
The documentary, which features Ben Stein, an actor, comedian and former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon, looks at alleged discrimination against scientists and teachers who support so-called intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.
The suit is against the film's producers and distributors: Premise Media Corporation, C&S Production LP and Rocky Mountain Pictures.
The producers cited the fair use doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism.
"We are disappointed therefore that Yoko Ono and others have decided to challenge our free speech right to comment on the song 'Imagine' in our documentary film," they said in a statement.
I have not looked into the fair use claim, but it was my impression that the use for commentary or criticism was in regards to the song, not just using the song to then offer commentary on something else. But it will be interesting to see if that is the case. I may try to do some research on that later. If I find anything I will post it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSN2320158220080423
NEW YORK (Reuters) - John Lennon's sons and widow, Yoko Ono, are suing the filmmakers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for using the song "Imagine" in the documentary without permission.
Lennon recorded the song in 1971 and in 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked it No. 3 on their list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, according to the lawsuit.
Ono, her son Sean Ono Lennon, and Julian Lennon, John Lennon's son from his first marriage, along with privately held publisher EMI Blackwood Music Inc filed suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking to bar the filmmakers and their distributors from continuing to use "Imagine" in the movie.
They are also seeking unspecified damages.
The documentary, which features Ben Stein, an actor, comedian and former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon, looks at alleged discrimination against scientists and teachers who support so-called intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.
The suit is against the film's producers and distributors: Premise Media Corporation, C&S Production LP and Rocky Mountain Pictures.
The producers cited the fair use doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism.
"We are disappointed therefore that Yoko Ono and others have decided to challenge our free speech right to comment on the song 'Imagine' in our documentary film," they said in a statement.
I have not looked into the fair use claim, but it was my impression that the use for commentary or criticism was in regards to the song, not just using the song to then offer commentary on something else. But it will be interesting to see if that is the case. I may try to do some research on that later. If I find anything I will post it.
TRaffic Jammer
It's generally a good thing to present those choices to kids, but it's an absolutely awful idea to have schools doing that.
Teach your kids about spirituality at home and at church because no matter how you try to sanitize it, you are passing on spiritual/religious values. Just in deciding which religions to expose them too (even which religions you consider religions at all) and what kind of positive or negative sheen you put on them.
Exactly, what I propose it to teach kids the actual beliefs of religion X and how it relates to religion Y, how they differ and how they are similar. Hopefully taught by someone who is an independent thinker who won't impose his/her values on the students. I think religious-based education is one of the most dangerous things out there as it helps separate us even more. There was a call here before our provincial elections to publicly fund religious schools, to which our premier kept saying he wanted jewish kids to be going to school with muslim and catholic kids side by side. It made for great election momentum in our multicultural province. It got me to thinkin' that an objective comparative study of major religions would be very cool for younger people....this type of course can only be found in university. It might help reduce some of the religious foolishness we see in our societies these days.
Our kids have learned (at home) about most of the world's major religions... my ten year old when she was younger told me when she grew up she was going to be Jewish.
Ignorance is Bliss, until the ignorant discover just how ignorant they've been .
Teach your kids about spirituality at home and at church because no matter how you try to sanitize it, you are passing on spiritual/religious values. Just in deciding which religions to expose them too (even which religions you consider religions at all) and what kind of positive or negative sheen you put on them.
Exactly, what I propose it to teach kids the actual beliefs of religion X and how it relates to religion Y, how they differ and how they are similar. Hopefully taught by someone who is an independent thinker who won't impose his/her values on the students. I think religious-based education is one of the most dangerous things out there as it helps separate us even more. There was a call here before our provincial elections to publicly fund religious schools, to which our premier kept saying he wanted jewish kids to be going to school with muslim and catholic kids side by side. It made for great election momentum in our multicultural province. It got me to thinkin' that an objective comparative study of major religions would be very cool for younger people....this type of course can only be found in university. It might help reduce some of the religious foolishness we see in our societies these days.
Our kids have learned (at home) about most of the world's major religions... my ten year old when she was younger told me when she grew up she was going to be Jewish.
Ignorance is Bliss, until the ignorant discover just how ignorant they've been .
Brillig
Exactly, what I propose it to teach kids the actual beliefs of religion X and how it relates to religion Y, how they differ and how they are similar. Hopefully taught by someone who is an independent thinker who won't impose his/her values on the students.
That's a quagmire. Just evaluating which religions to teach about and analyzing how every statement about them could be taken as endorsing or disparaging would be a nightmare.
That's a quagmire. Just evaluating which religions to teach about and analyzing how every statement about them could be taken as endorsing or disparaging would be a nightmare.
Mr York
Info about fair use:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
It seems to me like the use of the song in Expelled skirts the edges of what is considered fair use. And that is probably why it will have to go to court. The makers of Expelled claim it as fair use, Lennon's family claim it as infringement. The principals of fair use as written are probably too vague to settle the matter without going to court.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
It seems to me like the use of the song in Expelled skirts the edges of what is considered fair use. And that is probably why it will have to go to court. The makers of Expelled claim it as fair use, Lennon's family claim it as infringement. The principals of fair use as written are probably too vague to settle the matter without going to court.
TRaffic Jammer
^^agreed^^ population-based possibly as representative of the cross section of the community??
Dang it might have to include, TomCruise-ists. The neighborhood Muslims would all have to agree no calls for the teachers death, every time they had a class. :)
For kicks, I'm of the thought we were planted here by aliens (gods) in order to see if we'd "evolve" past our baser instincts. Global intelligence ramping up our tech development ages ago. The weird threes and scalable triangles in our man made ancient sites. I think if we were to develop faster-than-light travel before we become as peace with ourselves as a species, we'd be boiled in space as a failed experiment and disposed of like a dirty petri dish.
Why can't we replicated the tech that built pyramids?
Why only 250 years after the youngest pyramid was built, did not a soul in Egypt understand the languages of the Pharaohs? How does THAT much knowledge simply vanish? Stonehenge, lines of energy that wrap the Earth..land drawings that can ONLY be seen from the air...wtf? Too many unexplained things from the past that suggest intervention. Just to add fuel to the BBQ.
It's unfortunate that even science is willing to crease critical thinking b/c someone has an ALMOST provable idea. Case in point the discovery that autistic folk may be trapped behind bad wiring and not mentally incapacitated as previously thought. These was the prevalent belief for 50 years, and it's recently been busted wide open. Our understand of well, everything around us continues to grow daily. Oh we are so arrogant as a species aren't we?
Dang it might have to include, TomCruise-ists. The neighborhood Muslims would all have to agree no calls for the teachers death, every time they had a class. :)
For kicks, I'm of the thought we were planted here by aliens (gods) in order to see if we'd "evolve" past our baser instincts. Global intelligence ramping up our tech development ages ago. The weird threes and scalable triangles in our man made ancient sites. I think if we were to develop faster-than-light travel before we become as peace with ourselves as a species, we'd be boiled in space as a failed experiment and disposed of like a dirty petri dish.
Why can't we replicated the tech that built pyramids?
Why only 250 years after the youngest pyramid was built, did not a soul in Egypt understand the languages of the Pharaohs? How does THAT much knowledge simply vanish? Stonehenge, lines of energy that wrap the Earth..land drawings that can ONLY be seen from the air...wtf? Too many unexplained things from the past that suggest intervention. Just to add fuel to the BBQ.
It's unfortunate that even science is willing to crease critical thinking b/c someone has an ALMOST provable idea. Case in point the discovery that autistic folk may be trapped behind bad wiring and not mentally incapacitated as previously thought. These was the prevalent belief for 50 years, and it's recently been busted wide open. Our understand of well, everything around us continues to grow daily. Oh we are so arrogant as a species aren't we?
KrisPistofferson
^^agreed^^ population-based possibly as representative of the cross section of the community??
Dang it might have to include, TomCruise-ists. The neighborhood Muslims would all have to agree no calls for the teachers death, every time they had a class. :)
For kicks, I'm of the thought we were planted here by aliens (gods) in order to see if we'd "evolve" past our baser instincts. Global intelligence ramping up our tech development ages ago. The weird threes and scalable triangles in our man made ancient sites. I think if we were to develop faster-than-light travel before we become as peace with ourselves as a species, we'd be boiled in space as a failed experiment and disposed of like a dirty petri dish.
Why can't we replicated the tech that built pyramids?
Why only 250 years after the youngest pyramid was built, did not a soul in Egypt understand the languages of the Pharaohs? How does THAT much knowledge simply vanish? Stonehenge, lines of energy that wrap the Earth..land drawings that can ONLY be seen from the air...wtf? Too many unexplained things from the past that suggest intervention. Just to add fuel to the BBQ.
:eek:
Dang it might have to include, TomCruise-ists. The neighborhood Muslims would all have to agree no calls for the teachers death, every time they had a class. :)
For kicks, I'm of the thought we were planted here by aliens (gods) in order to see if we'd "evolve" past our baser instincts. Global intelligence ramping up our tech development ages ago. The weird threes and scalable triangles in our man made ancient sites. I think if we were to develop faster-than-light travel before we become as peace with ourselves as a species, we'd be boiled in space as a failed experiment and disposed of like a dirty petri dish.
Why can't we replicated the tech that built pyramids?
Why only 250 years after the youngest pyramid was built, did not a soul in Egypt understand the languages of the Pharaohs? How does THAT much knowledge simply vanish? Stonehenge, lines of energy that wrap the Earth..land drawings that can ONLY be seen from the air...wtf? Too many unexplained things from the past that suggest intervention. Just to add fuel to the BBQ.
:eek:
TRaffic Jammer
:lol: have fun with that one.... oh but a benevolent spirit in everything is MORE believable? I still think that was to give the slaves some hope for the ends of their miserable existences. Suffering....it's good for you, makes you pious.
Plus the above theory covers both God AND Evolution...take that... :lol: Two belief systems for the price of one.
Plus the above theory covers both God AND Evolution...take that... :lol: Two belief systems for the price of one.
dewaday
^^agreed^^ population-based possibly as representative of the cross section of the community??
Dang it might have to include, TomCruise-ists. The neighborhood Muslims would all have to agree no calls for the teachers death, every time they had a class. :)
For kicks, I'm of the thought we were planted here by aliens (gods) in order to see if we'd "evolve" past our baser instincts. Global intelligence ramping up our tech development ages ago. The weird threes and scalable triangles in our man made ancient sites. I think if we were to develop faster-than-light travel before we become as peace with ourselves as a species, we'd be boiled in space as a failed experiment and disposed of like a dirty petri dish.
Why can't we replicated the tech that built pyramids?
Why only 250 years after the youngest pyramid was built, did not a soul in Egypt understand the languages of the Pharaohs? How does THAT much knowledge simply vanish? Stonehenge, lines of energy that wrap the Earth..land drawings that can ONLY be seen from the air...wtf? Too many unexplained things from the past that suggest intervention. Just to add fuel to the BBQ.
It's unfortunate that even science is willing to crease critical thinking b/c someone has an ALMOST provable idea. Case in point the discovery that autistic folk may be trapped behind bad wiring and not mentally incapacitated as previously thought. These was the prevalent belief for 50 years, and it's recently been busted wide open. Our understand of well, everything around us continues to grow daily. Oh we are so arrogant as a species aren't we?
You best keep that compound a deep secret, son.
Dang it might have to include, TomCruise-ists. The neighborhood Muslims would all have to agree no calls for the teachers death, every time they had a class. :)
For kicks, I'm of the thought we were planted here by aliens (gods) in order to see if we'd "evolve" past our baser instincts. Global intelligence ramping up our tech development ages ago. The weird threes and scalable triangles in our man made ancient sites. I think if we were to develop faster-than-light travel before we become as peace with ourselves as a species, we'd be boiled in space as a failed experiment and disposed of like a dirty petri dish.
Why can't we replicated the tech that built pyramids?
Why only 250 years after the youngest pyramid was built, did not a soul in Egypt understand the languages of the Pharaohs? How does THAT much knowledge simply vanish? Stonehenge, lines of energy that wrap the Earth..land drawings that can ONLY be seen from the air...wtf? Too many unexplained things from the past that suggest intervention. Just to add fuel to the BBQ.
It's unfortunate that even science is willing to crease critical thinking b/c someone has an ALMOST provable idea. Case in point the discovery that autistic folk may be trapped behind bad wiring and not mentally incapacitated as previously thought. These was the prevalent belief for 50 years, and it's recently been busted wide open. Our understand of well, everything around us continues to grow daily. Oh we are so arrogant as a species aren't we?
You best keep that compound a deep secret, son.
TRaffic Jammer
:lol: fun stuff... well....neither science , nor religion has explained some of our biggest mysteries. Our biggest mysteries also tend to be big honkin' structures. So we go after spirits, and origins of life stuff we may never be able to explain, when we can't explain where the giant calender or where the knowledge to built it came from.
Not that I do think we came from aliens, but as a point of argument ..... why not? Religion OR science? Seems somewhat limiting only two possibilities, and many of the world's most open minded people can't even fathom a possible answer beyond these two choices. Most likely because these two choices are in the hands of man to give mankind the answer, whereas the answer mightn't be ours to give. Everyone is looking for proof or blind faith, but never a combination of the two. See how easy it is two derail both camps? I bet Ben would get a kick out of this.. :lol:
Not that I do think we came from aliens, but as a point of argument ..... why not? Religion OR science? Seems somewhat limiting only two possibilities, and many of the world's most open minded people can't even fathom a possible answer beyond these two choices. Most likely because these two choices are in the hands of man to give mankind the answer, whereas the answer mightn't be ours to give. Everyone is looking for proof or blind faith, but never a combination of the two. See how easy it is two derail both camps? I bet Ben would get a kick out of this.. :lol:
Keith99
That's a quagmire. Just evaluating which religions to teach about and analyzing how every statement about them could be taken as endorsing or disparaging would be a nightmare.
If they leave out Thor I'll sue. If they leave out Kali one of my coworkers will get upset. You don't want her upset, if you must it is far smarter to leave out Thor and include Kali.
If they leave out Thor I'll sue. If they leave out Kali one of my coworkers will get upset. You don't want her upset, if you must it is far smarter to leave out Thor and include Kali.
KrisPistofferson
:lol: fun stuff... well....neither science , nor religion has explained some of our biggest mysteries. Our biggest mysteries also tend to be big honkin' structures. So we go after spirits, and origins of life stuff we may never be able to explain, when we can't explain where the giant calender or where the knowledge to built it came from.
Not that I do think we came from aliens, but as a point of argument ..... why not? Religion OR science? Seems somewhat limiting only two possibilities, and many of the world's most open minded people can't even fathom a possible answer beyond these two choices. Most likely because these two choices are in the hands of man to give mankind the answer, whereas the answer mightn't be ours to give. Everyone is looking for proof or blind faith, but never a combination of the two. See how easy it is two derail both camps? I bet Ben would get a kick out of this.. :lol:
You keep on coming back to this point of "There's no way to know anything" which I find pretty alarming, but I agree that in absence of proof, Tom Cruise, Joseph Smith, Pat Robertson and yes, Ben Stein are all on equal footing. However, there is lots of factual proof for evolution, and a scientific method that insures against truth being merely some story that is taken on faith, and you seem to imply this is not so for some odd reason.
Not that I do think we came from aliens, but as a point of argument ..... why not? Religion OR science? Seems somewhat limiting only two possibilities, and many of the world's most open minded people can't even fathom a possible answer beyond these two choices. Most likely because these two choices are in the hands of man to give mankind the answer, whereas the answer mightn't be ours to give. Everyone is looking for proof or blind faith, but never a combination of the two. See how easy it is two derail both camps? I bet Ben would get a kick out of this.. :lol:
You keep on coming back to this point of "There's no way to know anything" which I find pretty alarming, but I agree that in absence of proof, Tom Cruise, Joseph Smith, Pat Robertson and yes, Ben Stein are all on equal footing. However, there is lots of factual proof for evolution, and a scientific method that insures against truth being merely some story that is taken on faith, and you seem to imply this is not so for some odd reason.
TRaffic Jammer
Where I was leaning for the sake of arguement was that instead of just one possible answer there might be more. I am, in fact, a Darwinist, but then the God supporters come back with 'OK, so who put us here to evolve?' Mathmatical hapenstance? We might be able to explain where we might have come, but where it all came from. Not yet at least. I'll always personally lean towrds the science.
BikePackin
[QUOTE=BikePackin;6608657]
No, it's a theory*, that's why it's called a "theory." Not to be confused with the colloquial way of saying hypothesis, which is to say theory. .
Yo Kris - You are stating that evolution is a *theory because it is "called" a theory ? !
How come you say that calling it a theory makes it a theory when "the scientific process/method" technically defines it only a good scientific hypothesis ? .... e.g., A. Can one observe the process of macro (species to species, aka speciation) evolution.... B. Can one re-enact speciation by multiple independent parties, AND then get the same fully analyzed results.... and the list goes on.
Please look up 'the' scientific process, aka 'the' scientific method, when you feel you wish to consider this topic with an open, educated and objectively critical scientific method mindset.
No, it's a theory*, that's why it's called a "theory." Not to be confused with the colloquial way of saying hypothesis, which is to say theory. .
Yo Kris - You are stating that evolution is a *theory because it is "called" a theory ? !
How come you say that calling it a theory makes it a theory when "the scientific process/method" technically defines it only a good scientific hypothesis ? .... e.g., A. Can one observe the process of macro (species to species, aka speciation) evolution.... B. Can one re-enact speciation by multiple independent parties, AND then get the same fully analyzed results.... and the list goes on.
Please look up 'the' scientific process, aka 'the' scientific method, when you feel you wish to consider this topic with an open, educated and objectively critical scientific method mindset.
late
[QUOTE=KrisPistofferson;6609728]
Yo Kris - You are stating that evolution is a *theory because it is "called" a theory ? !
How come you say that calling it a theory makes it a theory when "the scientific process/method" technically defines it only a good scientific hypothesis ? .... e.g., A. Can one observe the process of macro (species to species, aka speciation) evolution.... B. Can one re-enact speciation by multiple independent parties, AND then get the same fully analyzed results.... and the list goes on.
Please look up 'the' scientific process, aka 'the' scientific method, when you feel you wish to consider this topic with an open, educated and objectively critical scientific method mindset.
I studied the history of science, philosophy of science and methods in college.
A theory is
a theory largely because it is accepted as such. There have been cases where the dominant theory got ripped to shreds but they held onto to it for a while because there was nothing to replace it.
Yes, you can observe evolution. That's basic stuff. You can do it in different ways.
There are a number of texts on evolution that covers the basics. Gould wrote a book, I forget the name, but covers evolution and takes nearly 800 pages to do it. One reviewer commented that it seemed aimed at sceptics. Know anyone that fits that description?
But the bottom line is we know life changes. You look at a T rex skeleton and put anything currently breathing next ot it, and guess what... they look different.
We call that difference evolution.
One of the things goofballs have trouble with is that evolution is not unitary. At the basic level it's just a fact, a word describing the changes that happen to life over time.
How it happens is a matter of much discussion.
But that is pointless until you know the basics.
Lastly, if you want to start learning about science, the best single book I have seen on the subject, one I own.. is Explaining Science by Ronald N Giere.
It's not an easy read, it's written by a post Doc for post Docs that have a wide ranging curiousity.
But I will point out one thing in it, because of the irony it affords. He uses an
evolutionary metaphor for the development of science. He mentions one unfortunate lad who got his doctorate in an area of physics that had been red hot for years. Shortly after he got his diploma the field went stone cold. So he went back to school trained in another field which promptly went cold when he graduated.
"I, like Toulmin, (1972) meant to evoke a biological analogy. And not just in the broad sense of gradual change, but in the more specific sense of there being selective mechanisms operating on random variations."
Evolution is not just a theory, old boy, it's a meta-paradigm.
Yo Kris - You are stating that evolution is a *theory because it is "called" a theory ? !
How come you say that calling it a theory makes it a theory when "the scientific process/method" technically defines it only a good scientific hypothesis ? .... e.g., A. Can one observe the process of macro (species to species, aka speciation) evolution.... B. Can one re-enact speciation by multiple independent parties, AND then get the same fully analyzed results.... and the list goes on.
Please look up 'the' scientific process, aka 'the' scientific method, when you feel you wish to consider this topic with an open, educated and objectively critical scientific method mindset.
I studied the history of science, philosophy of science and methods in college.
A theory is
a theory largely because it is accepted as such. There have been cases where the dominant theory got ripped to shreds but they held onto to it for a while because there was nothing to replace it.
Yes, you can observe evolution. That's basic stuff. You can do it in different ways.
There are a number of texts on evolution that covers the basics. Gould wrote a book, I forget the name, but covers evolution and takes nearly 800 pages to do it. One reviewer commented that it seemed aimed at sceptics. Know anyone that fits that description?
But the bottom line is we know life changes. You look at a T rex skeleton and put anything currently breathing next ot it, and guess what... they look different.
We call that difference evolution.
One of the things goofballs have trouble with is that evolution is not unitary. At the basic level it's just a fact, a word describing the changes that happen to life over time.
How it happens is a matter of much discussion.
But that is pointless until you know the basics.
Lastly, if you want to start learning about science, the best single book I have seen on the subject, one I own.. is Explaining Science by Ronald N Giere.
It's not an easy read, it's written by a post Doc for post Docs that have a wide ranging curiousity.
But I will point out one thing in it, because of the irony it affords. He uses an
evolutionary metaphor for the development of science. He mentions one unfortunate lad who got his doctorate in an area of physics that had been red hot for years. Shortly after he got his diploma the field went stone cold. So he went back to school trained in another field which promptly went cold when he graduated.
"I, like Toulmin, (1972) meant to evoke a biological analogy. And not just in the broad sense of gradual change, but in the more specific sense of there being selective mechanisms operating on random variations."
Evolution is not just a theory, old boy, it's a meta-paradigm.
TRaffic Jammer
If they leave out Thor I'll sue. If they leave out Kali one of my coworkers will get upset. You don't want her upset, if you must it is far smarter to leave out Thor and include Kali.
Gotta leave the Norse in as they helped shape our current language and beliefs..
and the Druids, Wiccans and other pagans for their contributions to Christianity, as the clergy would allow their holidays to be folded into Catholicism in order to keep new Christians in the church.
from .. http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm
"Frigg is Odin's wife. Her name has been secularized to a slang term which refers to sexual intercourse. She is the patroness of the household and of married women."
I believe our now useless appendices are a prime example of how we are evolving. No more bark or leaves on my system.
Gotta leave the Norse in as they helped shape our current language and beliefs..
and the Druids, Wiccans and other pagans for their contributions to Christianity, as the clergy would allow their holidays to be folded into Catholicism in order to keep new Christians in the church.
from .. http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm
"Frigg is Odin's wife. Her name has been secularized to a slang term which refers to sexual intercourse. She is the patroness of the household and of married women."
I believe our now useless appendices are a prime example of how we are evolving. No more bark or leaves on my system.
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.