If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
pac plyer wrote:
If you where really knowledgeable about history, you would know that the colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's 1920's. And if you bother to read text from the period, you would find the term used to be "Moran" with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster John Moran, who, just couldn't put the dots together on a regular basis. What a crock. The English word is derived from the Greek word moron, neuter of moros, meaning stupid or foolish. I don't have an OED at hand to see how far back it does in English usage, but it appeared in a Mirriam-Webster dictionary in 1910. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message nk.net... Eric Miller wrote: "Mark Hickey" wrote in message ... Folk that think evolution and religion are diametrical opposites, should take note that the Catholic church accepts the theory of evolution. Eric Now that is funny, I should believe just because the Catholic church says so? I could go on about the Catholic church but well leave it at that. Read what I said again... I did *not* say: --------------- The theory of evolution is correct because the Catholic church said so (and the Catholic church is infallible...whether or not your Catholic... or even Christian). I *did* say: ------------ There's nothing incompatible or mutually exclusive about the theory of evolution and religion. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Russell Kent wrote in message ...
Corrie wrote: If you don't bother to check enroute winds and weather, TFRs, and runway conditions at your destination, you run the risk of some nasty surprises, right? But if you don't know and don't care where you're going to spend *eternity*, why would you bother to check SIGMETS? That's my point. The danger of an attitude of "I don't know and I don't care." Ah but you presume that because I care not to ponder the imponderable ever after, that I'm therefore willing to give up the here & now without a struggle. To skewer you with your own barb, I hope that you put more logic in your flight planning than you do into your postings. Russell Kent Russell, reread my original message. I presume nothing of the sort. I said that I HOPE you don't apply the same attitude to flight planning. If you're going to take issue with my arguments, do me the courtesy of quoting me accurately. Corrie |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
No, you're mistaken Corrie. I was not referring to the actual
Crusades of the Middle Ages. I always thought that the rule was if it's capitalized, it refers to the medieval editions. But you are correct - historically, religion is probably the most popular excuse for war. Personally, I think religion was invented by Satan to keep us fueding over inconsequentials rathe than persuing a relationship with the Creator. My tongue-in-cheek hypo, about what really happened to Grog was supposed to make you laugh. Remember the smileys next time! :-D But my hypothesis that Homo Sapiens won out over the stronger Neanderthal through the evolutionary technique of religious fervor is entertaining, wouldn't you say? I think Corky is right that religion is a mechanism of natural selection. (and yes, I agree with those who say some inbreeding occurred in the same Phylum between "Grog" and Sapiens.) It bears some consideration. Have you read "The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" or "Ishmael?" Natural selection (and artificial selection) certainly work within fairly homogenous populations. But if the quest for a relationship with the supernatural had survival value 20,000 years ago or even 2,000 years ago, why would it not have that same survival value now? Mazlow's ladder applies to Neandertal as well as to us today. People haven't really changed very much, at least as far as we can tell. (I'm reminded of the Egyptian inscription in the collection of the British museum. An official's second wife scratched out the references to his first wife...) Now about "Moran." It's unfortunate you have deteriorated into a spelling troll so quickly. Sorry, I'm a teacher and a parent. It's automatic. :-) If you where really knowledgeable about history, you would know that the colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's 1920's. And if you bother to read text from the period, you would find the term used to be "Moran" with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster John Moran, who, just couldn't put the dots together on a regular basis. I was never that interested in gangster history, sorry. Aviation history (of course), ancient civilizations, medieval Europe, a bit of Asian history, but not much on early-20th-century America. Blame my junior-high history teacher, I guess. We read "The Jungle," watched "The Grapes of Wrath," and read about labor disputes. It all sort of ran together. :-/ Thanks for the history lesson - I've long been fascinated by etymologies. [taken out of sequence] you illustrate exactly my point about the fallacy of taking written text like the King James version of the Bible so literally. ahh-ah-ah-ah! Gotcha. I *don't* advocate taking the KJV literally. Never have. I advocate *good scholarship* - looking at the oldest and most complete texts, comparing them to find and consider alternate renderings, looking at the literary and historical context, the grammar and word usage, etc. It's a lot more work than simply quoting KJV. Fortunately, a good deal of that effort has been collected in *modern* translations such as the NIV and RSV. I'd be more than happy to discuss the accuracy and authenticity of the Biblical texts. Bottom line is that if you throw out the Bible as "unreliable" - using the scholarly critera applied to any ancient document, such as a Roman paymaster's records - then you also have to throw out everything written by Socrates, Plato, Euclydies, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Julius Ceasar, Pliny, the Venerable Bede, etc. PLEEEESE don' throw me in dat briar patch, Brer Fox! :-D Only way out is to have an even more ruthless religion that spends all their time developing bigger mind-controlling weapons. What, pray tell, are the ruthless and mind-controlling aspects of the Sermon on the Mount? On the other hand, you are *quite* right with respect to secular humanism, with its weapon of the mind-controlling prayer-free public school and the ruthlessly anti-religious liberal university. Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie. Actually, that was when I began to abandon the religion I was raised in. Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray, they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays designed to pressure those of other faiths. Depends on your definition of "pressure." Learning how to put a rubber on a cucumber or give a BJ in the back seat is "comprehensive health education" according to some. But saying grace before meals is "pressure." Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket? It's about free choice. You support educational choice for parents, then? (no, I'm not really trying to drag this that far OT, but I can't pass up a striaght line.) I don't want a teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants. So now they countermand the religious beliefs of our citizens, and that's ok? Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice. Agreed. I just read that the Red Chinese have arrested a few more Christians for the crime of praying in their homes. Likewise enjoying intelligent discussion of things that matter, Corrie |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Ok enough of this bs here in RAH, take it back to your bible NG Corrie,
You don't know when to stop do you? Corrie wrote: No, you're mistaken Corrie. I was not referring to the actual Crusades of the Middle Ages. I always thought that the rule was if it's capitalized, it refers to the medieval editions. But you are correct - historically, religion is probably the most popular excuse for war. Personally, I think religion was invented by Satan to keep us fueding over inconsequentials rathe than persuing a relationship with the Creator. My tongue-in-cheek hypo, about what really happened to Grog was supposed to make you laugh. Remember the smileys next time! :-D But my hypothesis that Homo Sapiens won out over the stronger Neanderthal through the evolutionary technique of religious fervor is entertaining, wouldn't you say? I think Corky is right that religion is a mechanism of natural selection. (and yes, I agree with those who say some inbreeding occurred in the same Phylum between "Grog" and Sapiens.) It bears some consideration. Have you read "The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" or "Ishmael?" Natural selection (and artificial selection) certainly work within fairly homogenous populations. But if the quest for a relationship with the supernatural had survival value 20,000 years ago or even 2,000 years ago, why would it not have that same survival value now? Mazlow's ladder applies to Neandertal as well as to us today. People haven't really changed very much, at least as far as we can tell. (I'm reminded of the Egyptian inscription in the collection of the British museum. An official's second wife scratched out the references to his first wife...) Now about "Moran." It's unfortunate you have deteriorated into a spelling troll so quickly. Sorry, I'm a teacher and a parent. It's automatic. :-) If you where really knowledgeable about history, you would know that the colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's 1920's. And if you bother to read text from the period, you would find the term used to be "Moran" with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster John Moran, who, just couldn't put the dots together on a regular basis. I was never that interested in gangster history, sorry. Aviation history (of course), ancient civilizations, medieval Europe, a bit of Asian history, but not much on early-20th-century America. Blame my junior-high history teacher, I guess. We read "The Jungle," watched "The Grapes of Wrath," and read about labor disputes. It all sort of ran together. :-/ Thanks for the history lesson - I've long been fascinated by etymologies. [taken out of sequence] you illustrate exactly my point about the fallacy of taking written text like the King James version of the Bible so literally. ahh-ah-ah-ah! Gotcha. I *don't* advocate taking the KJV literally. Never have. I advocate *good scholarship* - looking at the oldest and most complete texts, comparing them to find and consider alternate renderings, looking at the literary and historical context, the grammar and word usage, etc. It's a lot more work than simply quoting KJV. Fortunately, a good deal of that effort has been collected in *modern* translations such as the NIV and RSV. I'd be more than happy to discuss the accuracy and authenticity of the Biblical texts. Bottom line is that if you throw out the Bible as "unreliable" - using the scholarly critera applied to any ancient document, such as a Roman paymaster's records - then you also have to throw out everything written by Socrates, Plato, Euclydies, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Julius Ceasar, Pliny, the Venerable Bede, etc. PLEEEESE don' throw me in dat briar patch, Brer Fox! :-D Only way out is to have an even more ruthless religion that spends all their time developing bigger mind-controlling weapons. What, pray tell, are the ruthless and mind-controlling aspects of the Sermon on the Mount? On the other hand, you are *quite* right with respect to secular humanism, with its weapon of the mind-controlling prayer-free public school and the ruthlessly anti-religious liberal university. Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie. Actually, that was when I began to abandon the religion I was raised in. Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray, they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays designed to pressure those of other faiths. Depends on your definition of "pressure." Learning how to put a rubber on a cucumber or give a BJ in the back seat is "comprehensive health education" according to some. But saying grace before meals is "pressure." Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket? It's about free choice. You support educational choice for parents, then? (no, I'm not really trying to drag this that far OT, but I can't pass up a striaght line.) I don't want a teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants. So now they countermand the religious beliefs of our citizens, and that's ok? Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice. Agreed. I just read that the Red Chinese have arrested a few more Christians for the crime of praying in their homes. Likewise enjoying intelligent discussion of things that matter, Corrie |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Jerry Springer wrote:
Ok enough of this bs here in RAH, take it back to your bible NG Corrie, You don't know when to stop do you? Good point Mr. Springer but why didn't you trim his post...??????? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Corrie wrote:
Not surprisingly, Cap'n Rich S. came up with a jpeg of a '50's era magazine describing the technique in detail. Where? I'd love to see the article. This is as pressing an issue for me as was, years back, the question of what the mannequin's name was in "The Monkees" television show. ;-) - Scott In brief, fly turns around a point while the passenger winches down a bag on a looong clothesline. Keep flying in circles until the ground crew empties/fills it, then crank it back up. Then go fly straight and level for a while with the windows open.....urk. Big John wrote in message . .. Have heard about the rope trick also. Seached the Internet and didn't find anything. Have passed the problem to some friends. Will see what they can come up with. If I had to guess, I'd say it happened many many years ago with some of those olden birds. Big John Question, though. I had always thought it was missionary pilots, but perhaps not -- who perfected the art of flying around in circles trailing a rope in order to drop off and pick up things from the ground? I can't find any references to the technique. What the heck would I enter in a google search? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Corrie" wrote
Proponents of intelligent design theory don't engage in pseudo-science. Like our materialist coutnerparts, we observe the evidence and predict outcomes. (Testing evolutionary hypotheses is done by observation, since you can't very well set up experiments over timescales of millions of years, no matter what your persuasion.) We simply come to a different conclusion. But the materialist orthodoxy is so entrenched - is mind-controlling too strong a term? - than any deviation from Darwinian Holy Writ is labeled heretical. Futher, the heretics are made the target of viscious, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks. That's bigotry, plain and simple. Evolution - macro-evolution between phyla or orders - IS only theory. It is NOT proven. The evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. But it is taught to children as established fact, and those who dare deviate are persecuted. Yeah, I have a problem with that. It's Scopes in reverse. Someone said something about people should be able to make informed choices? From a purist standpoint, *anyone* entrenched in a belief system, no matter what their title or beliefs, is not engaging in science. Period. Science is open to criticism. Faith (and that includes faith *in* science) is not. By definition, there are no unassailable beliefs in science. My comments about pseudo-science not observing and predicting was a general comment directed especially at the pyramid-crystal-magnet-homeopathic crowd that couldn't conduct a double-blind study if they performed their tests at midnight in a coal mine after plunging red-hot spikes into their eyes... (Now, ask me how I *really* feel ) Testability is a cornerstone of science. And while macro-evolution doesn't lend itself well to testing, in theory it could be tested, demonstrated and proven.You can *not* test and prove intelligent design, that's an article of faith. Untestable hypotheses are useless and are the hallmark junk science. The classic cases are mediums, spiritualists and mentalists whose powers mysterious vanish when subjected to controlled conditions citing "hostile" environments. "Some things have to be belived to be seen" is not an acceptable tenet of scientific inquiry. Personally speaking, I see no tautological difference between saying first there was a creator who then created the universe and saying first there was the universe which exists without a creator. For God's sake (pun fully intended ), use Occam's razor and cut out the middle man! We should find the anthropomorphic principle to be mutually acceptable. Acceptable to me because I can interpret it to state that if conditions *weren't* just right, we wouldn't be here right now (discussing evolution on RAH). Acceptable to you because you can interpret it to state that some higher power made the conditions just right (so we can discuss evolution on RAH). Remember the word "theory" has different meaning in the vernacular than it does in the scientific community, and this causes a lot of confusion. In common parlance, "theory" means unproven, could be true, who knows? Scientifically, "theory" means a generally accepted principle without any major contradictions. You don't hear much controversy over the Pythagorean Theorem I wouldn't exactly call creationists (honest question: is that the old term for intelligent design theorists?) persecuted. However, the fact is they *don't* practice science and for that reason have excluded *themselves* from the scientific community. If you don't play by the rules, you don't get to join the club; it's that simple. If I use steroids, I can't try out for the women's Olympic track and field because a) steriods aren't allowed b) I'm not a woman and c) I'd get my butt whooped regardless of a) and b)... However, that doesn't equate my exclusion from women's track and field with bigotry. Again, personally speaking, I'd rather children were taught that the world is subject to change and here is a mechanism which can explain it, than they were taught the world was created 6007 years ago, hasn't changed since and BTW God is a big trickster (for creating fossil records, background radition, etc)... YMMV Eric |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie.
Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray, they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays designed to pressure those of other faiths. If it's still too upsetting to a Zealot parent, then you can put your kid in a private monk school or something. It's about free choice. I don't want a teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants. It used to be o.k. when a region was: all Puritan for example. It's different now. Things had to change. Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice. This country was founded on the principles of Free Masons who believed in religious tolerance above any traditional religion, which is IMHO one of the biggest reasons why we have been so successful as a truly free people. For "Pollsters" who may be lurking, I do not desire to discuss this with earthbound morANs over at alt.religion. So Corrie, Corky, Oldcop, Bernie, others, feel free to comment here, or change my mind about anything. Hey Pac, you a Traveling Man? Any of you for that matter? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots | Larry Smith | Home Built | 22 | August 14th 03 10:03 PM |