|
Author
|
Topic: Education
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: nail on head
quote:
My thoughts precisely - I learned to avoid their self-important banter some time ago...
Hey, pink, have you adopted the diet of the most healthy people in the world, the Okinowans, yet? Mmmmmmm, lard.
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
|
Message 242 of 304 (270480)
12-18-2005 10:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 241 by nator
12-18-2005 9:19 AM
|
|
Re: nail on head
The criticism made of you:
RR writes: you with your proper living formula Your response:
schraf writes: have you adopted the diet of the most healthy people in the world, the Okinowans, yet? You couldn't have done a better job of demonstrating his point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by nator, posted 12-18-2005 9:19 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 245 by nator, posted 12-18-2005 3:08 PM | | pink sasquatch has not replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
|
|
Message 243 of 304 (270483)
12-18-2005 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 240 by Silent H
12-18-2005 5:44 AM
|
|
a Festivus for the rest of us
Holmes, I wasn't agreeing with RR's comments regarding this thread; I was agreeing with them regarding your posts throughout the forum. And believe me, I am NOT defending schraf - she has always seemed to me to be more interested in starting an argument than having a constructive discussion. Regarding your posting style, I personally feel it comes with a lot of self-important attitude. Maybe that's not your intent, but it is how I read it; as I've said before to you - that I think you make yourself a self-appointed expert on things, and then proceed to get your facts wrong. Just my view. I think I get frustrated with some of your commentary because we share many experiences and you argue from those experiences differently than I would, yet you do so in a general, absolute sense. I'm sure (absolutely positive) there are others on the forum that dislike aspects of my posting style. You are correct, my comments in this thread are unnecessary, though not meant to be insulting. I personally thought RR's comments were dead-on and I wanted to pat him on the back (I would have POTMed them except for the fact that they were simply commenting on the attitude of others). I don't know, it's only a few days to Festivus, maybe I'm just in a mood to air my grievances...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 240 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 5:44 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 244 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 12:16 PM | | pink sasquatch has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: a Festivus for the rest of us
I decided to rewrite my reply, since my first was a bit rambley and repetitive. Personally I have nothing wrong with your writing style, and I'm not going to pretend so just because you may not like mine. However I will say I didn't appreciate what you just did. I don't remember having some big issue with you and so was suprised to hear such harsh opinions about me. And more surprising is that it came out in this fashion. I have a rather extensive background in many subjects, and so discuss them, but I don't mean to pretend to be an expert, including in those subjects. If you think I am pretending to knowledge I don't have, or that I think I know more than anyone else in such fields, why not just point that out? I also do not intend to argue for general absolute rules, specifically in matters of morals and tastes. As far as I can recall the basic thrust of most of my posts here at EvC have been against general absolute rules posited by others. That was certainly the case here. If you feel that I do, just point it out when I do. I really am open to timely and constructive criticism.
and then proceed to get your facts wrong. This one I have to take exception with. That is something different than my failing to make the right impression. You appear to be charging me with having made numerous (more often than not) factual errors. If you feel I am getting facts wrong, then why haven't you said anything? I think its a bit unfair to not have done so and simply assert this about me later. I mean you could be right, but how am I supposed to know unless you present the counter facts? If you have told me and I have left something hanging, then bump it. Have fun with the feats of strength. This message has been edited by holmes, 12-18-2005 02:24 PM
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: nail on head
Oh please. You are the one who has the holier-than-thou attitude regarding the consumption of meat, and believe all sorts of extreme, out-there things regarding how terrible it is for one's health. Yet, when shown that the most healthy, disease free people in the world eat about 200 grams of pork and fish every day, and cook in lard, you have no comment, and in fact disappear. Here's the post in the thread that you never responded to. And a link to the thread. This is way back on 6/25 this past summer!
quote:
Pink Sasquatch writes: I believe Okinawa ranked first in disease-free lifespan, and their diet consists mainly of lots of fresh vegetables and lots of fresh seafood (I don't remember off-hand if they are big soy/tofu consumers...) Soooo... Okinawans (?) don't live as long as Americans, but they are healthy longer, essentially til they drop dead one day.
Um, well, Okinawa is known as the pork-consumption capital of Japan. Two of our best friends lived in Okinawa for several years at various times, and another friend has visited there. They were treated to many dinners out at very traditional Okinawan restaurants and were served one fatty, rich pork dish after another. Page Not Found - Okinawa.com
The preferred meat Pork is important to the Okinawan diet, a food tradition borrowed from the Chinese and preferred, as it is in many island nations, because the land lacks an abundance of grazing land. All part of the pig were used, often preserved in salt so that the meat could provide nourishment for many months. ?There?s an Okinawan joke that the only thing you cannot use of the pig is the pig?s cry when it?s about to be slaughtered,? said Yamada. Rafute is a classic pork dish, in which the meat is simmered for several hours in stock and soy, resulting in a tender soy-glazed pork punctuated with accents of ginger. Numerous pork and vegetable combinations are served with a bowl of rice ? for example, pork, goya and eggplant chanpuru, seasoned with miso. Other notable dishes from the pig include pigs feet soup, spare ribs and nakami, or intestine soup. Pork may not be considered good for the body because of the fat, said Yamada. But we almost always cook it with vegetables and tofu; pork is a small portion of the dish.? And the meat is generally cooked more than once. Pork also flavors soups for soba dishes, another common dish of Okinawan cuisine, but made with wheat flour rather than buckwheat noodles. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-18-2005 03:17 PM
|
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: 10-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 246 of 304 (270530)
12-18-2005 3:10 PM
|
|
|
Suspension Warning
This is NOT the place to continue this discussion on Holmes, Schraf, Pink or anyone else. If this continues, suspensions will be handed out.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Re: Does education matter?
So what do you believe? I believe nothing. I regard the theory of evolution as accurate. There's no need for me to regard it as true. If you see a contradiction there then it's because you don't understand the words I'm using, and perhaps you'd like to consult a dictionary to help you with that.
Clearly you can believe something that isn't true, and disbelieve something that is proven to be true by others. I just said that if you accept it, then you have a belief in it, because that it the meaning of the word. And, to repeat myself, I've already corrected your misapprehension. I do not have a belief in it. I regard it as accurate. I'm under no requirement to regard it as "true" to regard it as accurate. You're conflating accuracy with truth, a grevious logical error, and in doing so, you're insultingly misconstruing my position. I must politely ask you to stop. There's no need for me to "believe" evolution, because it's an accurate theory. Belief is not required, and its insulting and impolite of you to insist otherwise. I've made my position clear. Please do not attempt to misrepresent it again.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by RobertFitz, posted 12-16-2005 4:22 PM | | RobertFitz has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
I'm talking about peoples perception. You know that there are people out there who see your evidence, and even though it seems incontrovertible to you, they still reject it. Right, but who cares about the perceptions of crazy people? Don't you think the definition of insanity covers persons who refuse to believe what is incontrovertably before their eyes?
And then you and crash frog , and others go, "wel they are just wrong"... Well, they are. Why is it objectionable to you to point out when people are in factual error about objective facts?
Whatever you say about evidence and method and validity and proof, it can still be rejected by other people. Who cares about those people? Only the insane reject what is incontrovertably, undeniably in front of them. Are we now so "politically correct" or whatever that the musings of the insane are to be taken at the same value as the opinions of reasonable people? Should historians be categorizing the "biographies" of all the inmates who have claimed to be Napoleon or Gandhi, because we're now not allowed to dismiss these people as deluded? People who do not accept what is incontrovertably proven to them are deluded. That's not conceit; that's an accurate description of certain persons. If you disagree then you must fling the doors of the asylumns wide open, for you have no basis now to conclude that anyone is insane.
|
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4170 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: 12-01-2003
|
|
|
Message 249 of 304 (270730)
12-19-2005 10:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 207 by Philip
12-16-2005 4:02 PM
|
|
Re: MDs are not evolution biologists
Philip writes: Are these your "friends" Well, some are friends, some are acquaintances (and I'd still call them "friends"), and one is a relative.
Philip writes: ... are they schooled Well goooooooolly, I'd sure recon so. They all even done goed to college, and did themsleves some book-learnen and everything.
Philip writes: ...are they human? Boy, you sure friggen got me here. I guess they could all be Martians. The one that is a relative, however, does have a belly button (I know cuz I've seen it!) and has given "birth" to three human-like bipedal organisms though...if that helps. So what's your point, Philip? It's not an insult to state that even despite years of education, including medical school, that one has a very limited knowledge of evolutionary biology.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by Philip, posted 12-16-2005 4:02 PM | | Philip has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 251 by Philip, posted 12-19-2005 12:09 PM | | FliesOnly has replied |
|
Philip
Member (Idle past 4748 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: 03-10-2002
|
|
|
Message 250 of 304 (270746)
12-19-2005 11:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 232 by Silent H
12-17-2005 5:49 AM
|
|
Thanksgiving in this X-Lax Season
"Holmes" writes: "Philip" writes: ...Thank you sir... I don't think you understood me. I was saying that individuals must be blamed and held accountable for their errors, and it happens on both sides...
Well I thanked you because (you) the uncanniest of my opponents kindly freed me from the dreadful snare of the contentious feline. (Additionally, her majestic Admin-visage can crush (stomp) sinners who violate EvC’s “reasonable standards of holiness”). As this is off-topic and this "education" thread seems irredeemably devolved, I'll probably counter some of your other off-topic rebuttals elsewhere to your (dis-)satisfaction, or whatever.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 232 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2005 5:49 AM | | Silent H has not replied |
|
Philip
Member (Idle past 4748 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: 03-10-2002
|
|
|
Message 251 of 304 (270749)
12-19-2005 12:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 249 by FliesOnly
12-19-2005 10:56 AM
|
|
Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Now you've changed wording to "limited" knowledge of the ToE, a crime (methinks) everyone has committed. At least it seems to me there's a limited evolutionary knowledge (if any) of: Quark etiology, light, inflationary-big-bang etiology(s), space-time continuum(s), gene-pool etiology(s), universal equilibration for life on earth, punctuated chromosomal mutations during the *Cambrian*, persons, spirituality, etc. Concede the following then: 1) N.A.S. research droids are clueless in fundamental evo-science. 2) U.S. Research scientists are blindly-ignorant of such evo-ignorance in U.S. science organizations. 3) Fundamental Evo-science needs recalibration, redefinition of materials and techniques, and a publicized DISCLAIMER OF ITS LIMITATIONS with regard to evo-disputes and the cosmos. (Heck, Alabama physicians and lawyers are required to publish similar disclaimers on ALL their Ads.) 4) Special creation hypotheses ”fit’ to salvage the currently perverted ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. (Edited for grammar) This message has been edited by Philip, 12-19-2005 12:47 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 249 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2005 10:56 AM | | FliesOnly has replied |
|
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4170 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: 12-01-2003
|
|
|
Message 252 of 304 (270789)
12-19-2005 2:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 251 by Philip
12-19-2005 12:09 PM
|
|
Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Philip writes: Now you've changed wording to "limited" knowledge of the ToE, a crime (methinks) everyone has committed. Yes Philip...limited knowledge. What's the big deal? No one that I know asserts to have full and complete understanding of all evolutionary theory. Seeing as how it involves multi-disciplines in biology, as well as physics, chemistry, geology, (and others), I fail to see how "admitting" to limited knowledge is in any way a great discovery on your part. Now, let me be perfectly clear on what I am telling you. A couple of my friends in the medical professions do know a great deal more about human anatomy than do I. I freely, and happily admit this (actually, I friggen hope they have a better understanding of anat and phys than I do). They’re doctors . they operate on people . they make diagnosis . they treat illnesses . but guess what they don’t do. They don’t get involved in experiments to test their hypothesis. Nope . sorry Philip...they save that particular practice for medical scientists. However, despite their many years of additional education and practical experiences within the medical field, they also have a "limited" knowledge of evolutionary biology...less so than mine (which is also limited). Got it. Being a doctor does not ipso facto make one necessarily an expert in evolutionary biology.
Philip writes: At least it seems to me there's a limited evolutionary knowledge (if any) of: Quark etiology, light, inflationary-big-bang etiology(s), space-time continuum(s),... I fail to see what the point is you are trying to make here. What do space-time continuums have to do with evolutionary theory?...light?...inflationary-big-bang-etiology(s) (what ever the hell those are)?
Philip writes: punctuated chromosomal mutations during the *Cambrian*, Am I supposed to be impressed with your use of big words and complex sentences that mean nothing? Seriously . Punctuated chromosomal mutations . I love it . you are hoot Philip.
Philip writes: Concede the following then: 1) N.A.S. research droids are clueless in fundamental evo-science. N.A.S. has research droids? Wow, how cool is that! Also, what exactly is "fundamental evo science"? Will you concede that you have no idea what you're talking about?
Philip writes: 2) U.S. Research scientists are blindly-ignorant of such evo-ignorance in U.S. science organizations. Specifically, which ignorant research scientists are you talking about here. Only those that deal with evolution, or are you referring to all U.S. scientists in general?
Philip writes: 3) Fundamental Evo-science needs recalibration, redefinition of materials and techniques, and a publicized DISCLAIMER OF ITS LIMITATIONS with regard to evo-disputes and the cosmos . It's nonsensical bull shit rambling like this that lead me to believe that you know nothing of science. A publicized disclaimer? Anyone that works in science KNOWS the limitations of science. We don't really need a disclaimer, we already know that science will never know anything with absolute certainty. And why are you again only requesting this nonsense for "evo-disputes"? Could it be because you gladly accept...oh... I don't know...what the hell, let's stick with medicine...could it be because you gladly accept medical science, scientists, and the brilliant work they have done in the past (and are continuing in the present), but yet you get your panties all in a bunch when the same standards are applied to evolutionary theory?
Philip writes: . (Heck, Alabama physicians and lawyers are required to publish similar disclaimers on ALL their Ads.) Alabama physicians and lawyers are required to publish public disclaimers with regards to their limited knowledge of evolution and how it relates to the cosmos? How bizarre. And quite frankly, it seems like a big waste of money and/or paper to me.
Philip writes: 4) Special creation hypotheses ”fit’ to salvage the currently perverted ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. What, exactly, are these "special creation hypotheses"? Come on Philip...be the first person to EVER put forth a single testable creation hypothesis! Please oh please oh fucking PLEASE give us this hypothesis! This is a big one Philip. The other stuff you wrote is mostly meaningless garbage . but this is a big one. We all eagerly await this TESTABLE hypothesis!!! Are you going to post it soon? If not (and I predict you won’t), then maybe you will enlighten me as to what it is with the N.A.S., and how they define science, that has been perverted. Seriously, Philip, that’s a pretty serious charge to make. I would like to see you back it up. What is there that makes the N.A.S., and their unfettered support of the ToE, fail as an excellent scientific organization? If not, than I will take this to mean you concede that you have absolutely know idea how science actually operates. I won’t hold my breath.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 251 by Philip, posted 12-19-2005 12:09 PM | | Philip has replied |
|
RobertFitz
Inactive Member
|
So you're saying all of the people who believe in the bible are insane because they;
quote:
reject what is incontrovertably, undeniably in front of them.
By the way, to refute your previous point about God's vicar on earth accepting evolution, see this; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175362,00.html
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2005 4:05 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2005 11:33 AM | | RobertFitz has not replied | | | Message 256 by jar, posted 12-20-2005 1:19 PM | | RobertFitz has replied |
|
Wounded King
Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
|
|
Message 254 of 304 (271024)
12-20-2005 7:23 AM
|
|
|
A cross discipline approach to teaching evolution.
There is a recent essay in PLOS Biology which discusses an attempt to produce a broad multidisciplenary course to introduce students from a broad range of subjects with the fundamentals of evolutionary theory ( Wilson, 2005). This seems like a worthwhile objective to me, although I'm sure there are those who will merely see it as a more open form of the 'indoctrination' they have claimed goes on anyway. As I say this seems like a worthwhile project to me but I was wondering what opinions, if any, others might have on it.
Wilson DS.
Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution.
PLoS Biol. 2005 Dec;3(12):e364. Epub 2005 Dec 13. Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory. Most people are familiar with the dismal statistics, showing how a large fraction of Americans at all educational levels do not accept the theory of evolution [1], how efforts to teach evolution often fail to have an impact [2], and how constant vigilance is required to keep evolution in the public school curriculum [3]. Even worse, most people who do accept the theory of evolution don't relate it to matters of importance in their own lives. There appear to be two walls of resistance, one denying the theory altogether and the other denying its relevance to human affairs. This essay reports a success story, showing how both walls of resistance can be surmounted by a single college course, and even more, by a university-wide program. It is based on a campus-wide evolutionary studies program called EvoS ( http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~evos/), initiated at Binghamton University in 2002, which currently includes over 50 faculty members representing 15 departments. Enthusiasm at all levels, from freshmen students to senior administrators, makes EvoS a potential model for evolution education that can be duplicated; the basic ingredients are present at most other institutions, from small colleges to major universities. In this essay, I will briefly describe the basic ingredients at both the single-course and program levels. First, however, it is important to document the claim that evolution can be made acceptable, interesting, and powerfully relevant to just about anyone in the space of a single semester. TTFN, WK
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
So you're saying all of the people who believe in the bible are insane because they; Well, only the people who believe the Bible is literally true. But yeah, those people are deluded, because they reject what is incontrovertably in front of their faces. Insane, sure. What would you call them? Why does religion get a free pass to ignore objective fact?
By the way, to refute your previous point about God's vicar on earth accepting evolution, see this; Did you actually read the article before you posted it? He's rejecting atheism, not evolution. Which completely supports my point that the Pope is likely not an atheist, and completely refutes your point that you can't believe in both evolution and God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 253 by RobertFitz, posted 12-20-2005 7:13 AM | | RobertFitz has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2