Threads like this make me realize how much smarter I am than the average human being. Thanks for the confidence boost, Deutsch.

/I'm sure others feel the same way, too.

So I was talking to a friend who said he believed it ID. I asked, "So, you're saying life is so complex that something intelligent created it?"
"Yes."
Then I asked, "So what created that intelligence?"
"Uh, it just exists."
"How? It cannot just appear. No doubt it was very complex itself, if it created all this complex life. So did it evolve from nothingness?"
"I don't think so..."
"All you did is add a layer to the argument then. You pushed the question of how life came about back to the layer of how the intelligence-that-created-life came about."
"Oh..."

Well to be fair the Big Bang is just a theory. And so are most things that happened before the era of human documentation. But that doesn't mean the theory is wrong or right.

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creation - all theories.

TheRising said,

"Perhaps you missed the the point of my post but that wouldn't surprise me."

Good to see you're not surprised. Let's see if I can clarify my take on your assertions a little.

TheRising then quoted Wake 'n Bake as saying,

"Reason #23123 Why Bush is the worst president ever and should be immediately impeached and subsequently imprisoned, along with most of his administration."

To which TheRising replies,

"Thats just asinine, and the reason why I hate liberals."

I see, so you hate liberals because some of them want to impeach a President for (among a litany of other reasons) who gives a speech crying how the US is falling behind in science and technology while backing the indoctrination of our school children with fairy tales in science class. This is the same president who gutted education funding, chopped student loan programs as the cost for college tuition climbed well past the annual salary of the middle class and has appointed more than one unqualified appointee into critical posts (even if they were doing a "heck of a job")

TheRising continued by informing us of his qualifications,

"Oh, and I'm not intellectually challenged, and I happen to believe the Big Bang, and I happen to be an Electrical Engineer, which, is probably the top five hardest majors to get."

No kidding? Actually I do respect the fact you are an Electrical Engineer (my father was one) but I fail to see how you can support a president and an administration that has declared war on science. This isn't the first instance of this type of crap - not even the first one this month.

TheRising said,

"So, what are your qualifications?"

Actually, I turned 50 today and have spent almost 30 years in high technology starting in High Vacuum Metallurgy and continuing into my current profession of building massive communications networks because I feel this is a critical thing of the people of this world to have - especially at this time.

I won't bore you with education or background as anyone can claim anything on these INTRENETS but I will tell you that I am sure we can each judge each other's capabilities by what we post here for all to read. I think I can safely say after all the posts I have made on Fark it can be safely assumed I know a little about reality (pun intended)

See, this is what I've been saying all along.. Why waste billions of dollars on things like "science" and "research" when we can just ask Jesus? And since Jesus only talks to a few of the most special people, by "Jesus" I mean "Pat Robertson".

With all the money we save on science and research, we ought to be able to come up with a really nice tax break for the wealthy.

Is this the same Dr Hansen who is the "father of Global Warming?" A Dr. Hansen was the Weenersulate that the earth was warming, this was of course in the 80's after all the funding for "Global Cooling" dried up.

The April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek darkly warned: "There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now.... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Unlike today, however, the mounting evidence that atmospheric scientists then struggled to keep up with was principally used to support a theory of global cooling, not global warming, The Newsweek article, entitled "The Cooling World," continued: "In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states."

Bob55:

Well to be fair the Big Bang is just a theory. And so are most things that happened before the era of human documentation. But that doesn't mean the theory is wrong or right.

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creation - all theories.

That's not "being fair", that's being scientifically illiterate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).

Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after their occurrence is no longer in scientific dispute. For example, "global warming" refers to the observation that worldwide temperatures seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles, capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from Maxwell's equations. This theory is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism.

The term theoretical is used in science to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment; failed predictions, however, also occur, and sometimes work to falsify a theory. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics there can also be confirmed experimental results that are not yet explained by theory.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established scientific knowledge, it is usually necessary for it to characterize a critical experiment, namely an experimental result not predicted by any existing established theory.

Unfortunately, usage of the term theory is muddled by scientists in such examples as string theory and various theories of everything, which are more correctly characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses or a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.

Most troublesome for the scientific community is the fact that, in common speech, theory has almost the opposite meaning from its use in the sciences. This change can be seen in modern dictionaries which now list theory as a "guess or hunch" in preference to the former scientific definition that used to be the dominant one

Technological, Mathematical and Scientific Achievement (represented by penis size):

USA... 8==========================================3
CHINA... 8==================================3


after the 2008 'Act to Abolish NASA in Order to Fund Holy Wars'


USA... 8============3
CHINA... 8=============================================3 ~ ~ ~

Taxcheat:
"For the record, I'm not Grover Norquist. I don't work for the American Enterprise Institute and I'm not being paid for Bushbotting. I am, however, amused by the suggestions."

You should be upset that people think your arguements are so stupid that the only way they believe someone could be making them is by being paid to.

buildingseven


spending millions on pens that will write in zero gravity instead of using pencils is retarded

Yeah, it's also not true.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Copy and paste. Snopes is your friend.

What a jerkoff.

I know statistics are made up (like this one), but I'd wager that 99.2% of political appointees are frigin idiots.

The bomb is at B:

The scientific evidence we have leads us to believe that the Big Bang did occur, however it is still a Theory, not a law like gravity.

There are no "laws" in science. When science became a serious academic pursuit in the 19th C after the enlightenment, people stopped using the term "law" since nothing is definitive in science. Had Newton live in the 19th C, it would be the "theory of gravity."

Hey, everyone, give Taxcheat a break. We should all be wary of the journalistic integrity of The New York Times, that commie rag.

We really need a BUSH tag.

Timbomb: You might have heard that scientist publish results. They give lectures. Even ones at government organizations. As long as what you have to say is not classified (and I can't imagine how climate data is) it is kosher. If you can't communicate the research then you work for a company on proprietary research for profit. Federal grants generate public research. In fact most grants/jobs are based on how much talking and publishing you do on your research. You might want to employ your brain before you post again.

In fact, certain types of research grants REQUIRE you to give public lectures about the research.

but I fail to see how you can support a president and an administration that has declared war on science.

I am not here to defend this administration's science policy. I, however do defend a lot of things this administration has done. Science, although my life revolves around it, is not a top priority when it comes to politics. The fact that all this kid did was demand "Theory" be implemented, is enraging you farkers this much is what bothers me beyond anything. You all have an undying and IRRATIONAL hatred towards anything this administration does. I agree, this kid is probably not the best apointee, and that could be argued. But all he was saying is that "THEORY" should be added, for OBVIOUS reasons. We can't, as a collection of science geared minds, even delve into the reasons, mechanics or math of the begining of the universe. Why then, should we teach that it is law, or fact. The irrationality at the hands of those "liberal" minded people people who are angry about this is solely because Bush had something to do with it is categorically ironic.

/I'm out, going to get ready for the Superbowl
//Hail Hawking and the sciences of cosmology
///Hail Steelers

Is it just me or are we getting more DC area Bush apologists? Elvira was doing this the other day, now it's Taxcheat

/tinfoil hat

Taxcheat
Man... I AM way smarter than a lot of people. Thanks for giving me the confidence boost, man. Haha. Keep the comments coming!

This is maybe the scariest story I've read in a long time. The Bush administration is often compared to the Nazi party,sometimes with some poor examples cited. I do think Deutsch's appointment and his actions are actually quite Goebbels-esque. In this case the Bush administraion actions are actually quite similar to the Nazi party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

Captain Hollywood

We really need a BUSH tag.


We already have that covered with "dumbass" and "stupid".

Taxcheat Pardon me if I am not of the opinion that all good things must be funded by the government, because usually when government does it, it isn't so good.

I think you missed bob_justice's earlier post.

Your entire anti-government rant is - though understandable since you infortunately live in DC - intellectually sloppy. Government agencies like the FBI, CIA, police, fire fighters, and so forth do good and valuable work. Government programs like interstate highways have provided much to our social and economic growth. I don't want to get into an off-topic discussion about government, but since no private businesses have stepped up to the plate for space research, we work with what he have.

Unfortunately, space research isn't as profitable as other scientific endeavors, like pharmaceuticals.

Oh, and if you want more ad hominems - you're still an ignorant troll.

Bob55

Evolution - Theory
Intelligent Design - Philosophy
Creation - Story

I'd put Big Bang at the level of hypothesis.

Me off to work on Sunday - Fact . . . /Sin?

To me, many of these Christians like to play pretend with just about everything. Want to be a Christian who still wears a yarmukle, oh you aren't a 'Christian' though, you're a Jew-for-Jebus! Want to try to convert people of a "darker" nature, by making a music or change your 'personality' (or lack thereof) to something similar, well then you can be a 'Christian Goth' (as opposed to many people who are Goth and who are also christian, without being the preachy "I am a Christian Goth and you can be one too", uggg) Just the same with ID, Christian ideals can't get into science, it's not 'Creationism' it's 'Intelligent Design'. If intelligent design is actually accurate, then who the hell was so intelligent as to create the group of nutcases I have described?

Random Reality Check-

(Golf clap)

Many of us ex-pats in Europe are just waiting to see what happens in the 2006 elections, and of course, the 2008 elections. It is scary that this administration has and will have one of the largest influences on government with all of the SCOTUS appointments. At least the neocons had the common sense to keep that hack out of that office. Let me know when it is safe to come back.

Taxcheat:

Pardon me if I am not of the opinion that all good things must be funded by the government, because usually when government does it, it isn't so good.


Government funded


Not government funded


Please shut up now.

You're doing a heckuva job, Deutschie.


/don't care that Wil beat me to it

hmmm, at least now i know what's up with the zero grav pen.
thanks for the snopes link, Lampmonster

Well if the creationist strategy was to call it "intelligent design"...shouldn't the scientists just agree to call theories something else. 'analaw', 'fnerjd' or any other word that will get the vulgate meaning of 'theory' disassociated with the scientific meaning of that word? I mean, they're all smart guys...they can figure it out, right?

By-law?

Seriously, if the people who believe in magic can pull it off, surely the wizards can do the same...

See, this is what I've been saying all along.. Why waste billions of dollars on things like "science" and "research" when we can just ask Jesus? And since Jesus only talks to a few of the most special people, by "Jesus" I mean "Pat Robertson".

Yeah, Intelligent Design's very concept has always struck me as people essentially saying, "You know what, this looks really, really hard to understand. So I'm not even going to attempt to solve it. I'm too stupid to figure it out and I freely admit it. Instead, I'll just say Jesus did it and go home early today."

TaxCheat Hansen can't be fired even though he isn't doing his job, he's advancing the agenda of the administration that lost the election.

And then, after presented with evidence that he is actually doing his job, you change your argument to say that his job should be something else. Awesome. I think you have a future in the Bush Administration.

They have CPU limits on websites now? WTF?

I'm pretty sure Steven Hawking was quoting Albert Einstein... and he goes on the refuet most of his own theories in the appendix of A brief history of time.

Captain Hollywood
We really need a BUSH tag.

But we already have the Hero tag!

/blatant trolling

EggSniper: Intelligent Design - Philosophy

I really don't think ID follows in the tradition of Socrates but it does have some things in common with ancient Greek mythology.

lol at anyone who thinks nasa is a waste of money. they get around 15 billion a year trying to do so many things- explore the universe, advance technology and update the current scientific theories, where as i heard 400 billion on defense tossed out for the next year. we probably drop 15 billion in bombs into the mud in iraq in a week, and all we get is a few less "terrorists" in the middle east. i bet 50 billion we could keep our own country safe if we stopped policing the world. the extra could go to a little more for nasa, health care provided by the govt, better schools, but god doesn't want that i guess. idiots in charge of money piss me off.

and the big bang is a theory, just like your existence and gravity. ID is a hypothesis, and one that makes no sense except to fill our egocentric heads. when will people stop using god as a coping skill to deal with their weak minds?

TheRising
Science, although my life revolves around it, is not a top priority when it comes to politics.

Sadly, it has been made into a political issue.

The fact that all this kid did was demand "Theory" be implemented, is enraging you farkers this much is what bothers me beyond anything.

It's his reasoning that's bothering everyone. He explicitly stated that the colliquial version of the word theory be used as a wedge to include Creationism. The article has been copy/pasted here, you have no reason to have not have read it.

SingletonFactory And then, after presented with evidence that he is actually doing his job, you change your argument to say that his job should be something else. Awesome. I think you have a future in the Bush Administration.

Yea, he never bothered to address that. Since I called him a troll in a separate post, he decided to ignore my "off topic ad hominems."

Police - Publicly Funded


Mall Security - Privatly Funded

Taxcheat, its clear from your posts that you're not employable -- by the Bush administration or any of the right-wing think tanks.

This whole issue boils down to a few key points to consider:

1) Scientific evidence supports what you perceive to be "some liberal agenda." Liberals have generally supported an objective, secular pursuit of scientific knowledge over religious considerations. Conservatives with an unabashed religious/corporate profit-influenced agenda have sought to mold scientific theory and evidence to fit this. This isn't a controversial statement. People in the conservative, fundamentalist movement have said as much.

2) Scientific agencies like NASA are supposed to be governed by a committment to science-based mission, where a rigorous vetting of theories and evidence is used in developing what is communicated to the public and/or government when making decisions. The political influences of one administration or another should not interfere with this.

3) Is this a case of a "leftist" scientist pushing an agenda not based on evidence? Or is this right-wing political appointee with no scientific credentials whatsoever pushing an conservative agenda without credible scientific evidence?

4) Does the fact that NASA employs this person at taxpayer expense preclude this employee from speaking to the press on matters he has scientific expertise in? Let's remember, NASA employeed a scientist, who was already a scientist, they didn't make him a scientist. I suspect any scientist at NASA has the right to speak on issues they are experts in, as long as they are speaking on their own behalf, not as the official position of NASA.

5) you are clearly a partisan hack, who has already gotten way too much time on this board serving up apologist nonesense for some underhanded right-wing attempt to cozy up to fundamentalist christians and businesses who stand to gain from a watered-down global warming theory.

TheRising,

Missed by a mile...

It isn't the insistence of the word "theory" that makes me crazy, it is the insertion of religion into science that has no reason other than dogma.

As quoted,

"This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

I have no problem with people practicing their religion, none whatsoever - as long as they are not hurting anyone else. At the same time, I have a real problem with anyone feeling as though they have to shove their religion down anyone else's throat - as we all should. I am completely agnostic, I don't care if it is Christians forcing their beliefs onto everyone or any other religion.

This ass is trying to force Christian dogma into a scientific discussion and he should be dismissed on those ground solely.

Have a great Superbowl!