steamingpile: This is what gets me, yes its a theory, yes it means something different in the scientific community. What none of you wanna recognize is that even in their community there are different levels of a theory. Theory of gravity is almost an absolute, yes there are variables, but 99% of it holds up. As of yet there is nothing to even put ID or evolution in that category of 99%, evolution has more facts supporting it and it doesnt look like you will ever find any facts supporting ID. Except of course the bible, and do you really believe that is a historic document? God, I hope they dont.

Actually, I'd say the theory of evolution is far better supported and far better understood than ANY of our theories on gravity.

If NASA wasn't doing anything wrong they'd have nothing to worry about, would they?

Also, Clinton got a BJ!!!

/thanks, neocons

From the history repeats itself dept: Lysenkoism

I can remember during the cold war how the USA bragged about not letting political ideology get in the way of science. My, my, how things have changed.

Big Al:

do you know how many of the smarest minds to have ever lived on this silly planet you are calling naive and credulous?


He did say you're not "stupid" to believe in god. Smart people can certainly be naive and credulous, and to reach a belief in god usually does not involve an intellectual experiment.

I'm a really smart guy with a lot of really smart friends, and have met more than one Nobel Laureate. Smart people still manage to do really dumb things on a regular basis.

But for what it's worth, while there are religous scientists, they're the minority.

siener:

I can remember during the cold war how the USA bragged about not letting political ideology get in the way of science. My, my, how things have changed.


The Germans also rejected Einstein and a lot of "Jewish science" in the 1930s, and this political stand probably helped to keep them from developing the bomb.

It drives me nuts that Bush in the SOTU address stresses the need for science and science education, then undermines himself in the same speech by calling for all cloning of all sorts to be banned. If you want the best science, stop restricting it! And especially stop restricting it with politics and lies (e.g., the trumped up number of "viable" stem cell lines).

siener
I can remember during the cold war how the USA bragged about not letting political ideology get in the way of science. My, my, how things have changed.

I so farking miss the USSR. They kept us in line by providing competition that we knew we had to be better than at all times, they kept the rest of the world relatively friendly with us out of fear of the alternative, and they provided a ready example of what happens to a country every other country thinks is a jerk. All tremendously relevant today.

24 year olds don't have backgrounds in ANYTHING.

TheRising:
Thanks for reminding me why I hate liberals.
ZipBeep
Because you hate people that tell the truth???

LOLOL!

Shame I wasn't able to join in this funfeast. pontechango in particular provided great fodder and I see the ever popular Random Reality Check made an appearance:

Where the President took the hit was for appointing someone unqualified for the position to head FEMA. It does seem like an awful lot of unqualified people get appointed to rather important positions, don't you agree?

Took the hit from whom? You? The media? Seems there wasn't a problem with Brown throughout the various national situations prior to Katrina. And by who's definition are these appointments "unqualified"? Your's? The media's?

I just don't get the furor over a young guy appointed to be a NASA public affairs officer unless you're the rabid Anti-Bushiate that can't stand anything the man does. If it's the age, try to recall our nations youngest President.

Global warming? Global cooling? It's a relative thing. The problem stems from those who seek to benefit from climate changes of which there is no baseline to work from.

Whomever believes in intelligent design is mentally deficient.

pontechango, problems with this, "Is There Still Time to Avoid Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with Global Climate?" you ask?

How about starting from the title? Why some of mankind are so filled with themselves that they think we have a dramatic impact on Nature is beyond me. I'll see your greenhouse gases and raise you Mount Pinatubo.

BTW, Happy belated b-day to Random Reality Check.

He needs the boot.

Time to flood NASA with e-mails demanding the removal of a snot nosed brat with zero science background. Who's with me?

I e-mailed this to NASA
publ­ic-in­quiri­esqhn­asagov

I have recently discovered one of your appointed employees, George Deutsch, made the made the following statement:
The Big Bang is not proven fact; it is opinion, Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, It is not NASAs place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.

Please remove this imbecile from your ranks. He is an embarrassment to the scientific community. He has no business promoting special interest groups agenda based on religious beliefs.
Remove him now.

Big Al

Intelligence, naivete and credulity are not mutually exclusive traits.

e4tango,

Nice to see you here and thanks for the birthday wishes.

Regarding your Weeners, "Took the hit from whom? You? The media? Seems there wasn't a problem with Brown throughout the various national situations prior to Katrina. And by who's definition are these appointments "unqualified"? Your's? The media's?"

The president took a well deserved hit for appointing the incredibly unqualified Michael Brown as head of FEMA when this idiot had no previous experience with disaster management and his lack of experience cost Americans their lives. This, I would like to think, is something we can both agree on is unacceptable. Whether you look at this as strictly a bad appointment or as not getting value out of our tax dollars is irrelevant, this was a horrible appointment.

As to who called the president on this? Well, it must have been pretty damned effective. For the first time the president came out and publicly admitted that this was a disaster.

As to your second comment, "I just don't get the furor over a young guy appointed to be a NASA public affairs officer unless you're the rabid Anti-Bushiate that can't stand anything the man does."

Let me be perfectly clear on this, for me, this has nothing to do with who appointed this moron, it has to do with his actions.

As quoted from this moron's web site,

"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."

We are talking about science here - not science and religion. This has more to do with the attitude this incompetent lunatic takes "That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most." is something that flies in the very face of reason.

I would also like to point out, I take exception with you defending this guy. NASA is a government agency that doesn't need babble injected into its mission. The idea that this appointment would go through is beyond audacious and borders on an outright slap in the face to any of us who hold science dear.

Please feel free to explain to us how this administration is looking out for our best interests by appointing unqualified morons to responsible posts.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing this one...

Northern,

Now would be a good time to return, we need every single thinking individual we can find to right this travesty that is currenty ruining our once fine nation.

Of course, if you'd like, feel free to let the rest of us do the heavy lifting.

smeegle,

Nice email! You'll make friends at NASA buttering them up like that!<Grin>

/Gwendolyn
/Couldn't they just say that God was the one
/who said "BANG!" and then there was
/everything?

The great irony of course, is that the "Big Bang" theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaitre.

The Big Bang STARTED as a way to bring Scientific theory and Christian beliefs into sync, and the Catholic Church has endorsed The Big Bang as being the best explanation of how things came to be.

So you're right, a lot of Christians just say "Yeah, that 'bang' thing, God did that" and move on with more important matters. While I have no statistics on the matter, the majority of Christians I know see no conflict in the debate, accept the "Big Bang" as a decent description of what happened and leave it at that.

Any physicists out there?

Dropping the religious baggage of the argument (which is easy since I don't subscribe to religion) isn't the big bang still technically a theory?

Just a couple of quick points.

1. Gravity is "just a theory."
2. The big bang theory is based on real evidence and reason.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever of a supernatural dimension or a creator that is why faith is the central tenant of any religion.
4. Who created the creator? (infinte regress)
5. There is no such thing as a disorderly universe

Theory = A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.


Notice the difference in thoery as a scientific term versus its normal usage. The main difference in the big bang theory vs intelligent design is the big bang is "explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena". Intelligent design is religion masqerading as science

Screw "Intelligent Design" and any stupid asshat that believes it. Dumb idiots are wrecking America.

silverjets:

Any physicists out there?

Dropping the religious baggage of the argument (which is easy since I don't subscribe to religion) isn't the big bang still technically a theory?


Of course it is, but that's not the point. The PR guy's reasoning is way off and makes NASA look like idiots.

And as theories go, the Big Bang is very solid and has essentially beaten all challengers. The fundamental points that the universe was hotter and denser in the past are essentially unassailable. The details cosmologists argue about today are not ones that you've ever heard about probably. And like evolution, the Big Bang addresses events AFTER the origin, not the origin itself.

The Theory, by A. Elk

All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too.

I flat refuse to talk to people that don't accept the Big Bang model.

They're idiots.

Quit acting like getting power back from these assclowns is just a matter of sitting on your hands and waiting. It isn't, that'll just get us all more of the same.

How do you know I'm not?

Random Reality Check
The president took a well deserved hit for appointing the incredibly unqualified Michael Brown as head of FEMA when this idiot had no previous experience with disaster management and his lack of experience cost Americans their lives.

If this guy was so terribly incompetent after being appointed back in 2003, why didn't that show up until Katrina? Who previously had experience with a catastrophe the likes of Katrina that could have performed better? Mind you, I'm not saying he did a bang-up job, but it drives me nuggets when people use hindsight to critique someone's actions. As for costing lives, I don't know what you're talking about. There was a hurricane. People were warned. It is not the job of the US government to be the lead element in such a situation. That falls to local and state authorities. Or would you rather the "arm" of our government be enlarged enough to cover everybody and everything?

For the first time the president came out and publicly admitted that this was a disaster.

Politics, pure and simple in my book. Would you expect him to blast Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco for their idiotic actions (even though he should have)?

...this has nothing to do with who appointed this moron, it has to do with his actions. As quoted from this moron's web site,

He has a website? Gotta a link?

I would also like to point out, I take exception with you defending this guy.

You're reacting and not paying attention to what I originally said: I don't understand why people are so upset over this guy's appointment. What real impact do you think he'll have? I'm sure that if his personal beliefs interfere with his job, he'll be removed.

As I think we've covered previously, I don't like religion intruding into and distorting science. But I think NASA has bigger problems to deal with than having some fundie as a public affairs officer.

Please feel free to explain to us how this administration is looking out for our best interests by appointing unqualified morons to responsible posts.

The administration is doing what it feels is right and proper. Some I agree with, the rest I don't. In a situation such as this, I think the jury will be out for a while; there's no need for a rush to judgement. Who else, in your mind, constitutes a moron that has been appointed by this administration?

e4tango:

The administration is doing what it feels is right and proper. Some I agree with, the rest I don't. In a situation such as this, I think the jury will be out for a while; there's no need for a rush to judgement. Who else, in your mind, constitutes a moron that has been appointed by this administration?


Trying to appoint Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court wasn't exactly a smart move, was it? How about praising Rumsfield and refusing to let him resign after the disaster in Iraq, Abu Garib, etc.? How about Ashcroft and his vendetta against states rights? Or Gonzales, promoting him to AG after he sanctioned torture and gave Bush the greenlight to ignore the Geneva Convention. Or promoting Rice, after she shilled for the trumped up WMD crap on Iraq, and now travels the world lying about what the US does with prisoners?

It seems like anyone loyal, no matter of how crappy a job they do, gets praised and/or promoted.

mbrother
Trying to appoint Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court wasn't exactly a smart move, was it?

In hindsight, probably not, but I think that was a ploy to draw out the expected criticism and ultimately benefit the next nominee. Actually, the fact that both sides had issues with her made me think that that might be a good thing!

How about praising Rumsfield and refusing to let him resign after the disaster in Iraq, Abu Garib, etc.?

Rumsfield has done a superlative job and deserves praise. Keep in mind that I look at his role as Secretary of Defense from a military viewpoint. There has been no "disaster" in Iraq and Abu Garib was a non-issue in my book; a few stupid individuals that ultimately recieved the punishment they deserved.

How about Ashcroft and his vendetta against states rights?

Can't say I was ever a fan of his but I don't think he did any irreparable damage. His prudishness bugged me the most.

Or Gonzales, promoting him to AG after he sanctioned torture and gave Bush the greenlight to ignore the Geneva Convention.

"Sanctioned torture"? Could you be referring to Abu Garib again? Please. What happened there does not constitute torture. In fact, it was no worse than a typical college hazing incident. As for the second part, I think you're ignoring the fact that the Geneva Convention applied to military personel, no insurgents or terrorists.

Or promoting Rice, after she shilled for the trumped up WMD crap on Iraq, and now travels the world lying about what the US does with prisoners?

Ms. Rice, I must admit, has become a favorite of mine and I can't help but be impressed with her capabilities. You'd be honored to kiss the ground she walked on.










Okay, sorry but I couldn't resist the bait! Seriously, the WMD issue was based on the best evidence at the time and the detainees receive much better treatment than true prisoners did in the old Iraq.

It seems like anyone loyal, no matter of how crappy a job they do, gets praised and/or promoted.

I look at it differently. Were I in such a position, loyalty would be a very important factor, especially considering how dog-eat-dog the realm of politics can be. And I think some people can certainly grow into a position. This zero tolerance attitude that pervades society irritates me because it is unrealistic.

Next?

24 year old George Deutsch, may have been misrepresenting himself. The media has been describing him as "a 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M." However it turns out that he never graduated.

Thanks for coming back with that bit of info. Had I not returned to this thread, I might never have known. I've had CNN on intermittently and haven't heard a thing...

From the NY Times:
Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office...

...According to his rsum, Mr. Deutsch received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."

Yesterday, officials at Texas A&M said that was not the case.

He lied, got busted and was fired. I say that's good.

The main issue seems to have stemmed from a dislike of President Bush appointing campaign workers obstensively as a reward. Anyone care to discuss this practice, regardless of which President?