Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Negative Impacts on Society
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 222 (94161)
03-23-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:53 AM


Re: lure'em in...
I may have read too much into the LAW IN RHODE ISLAND but it seemed to me that the state rule to have no DOUBLE HIGHER EDUCATION was meant to keep if not taxes but rather any idea of seperation of c&s from affecting the learning of its younger citizens. There may be two different churchs in the state that were seperated (or the seperation of RI from MASS etc)but if only ONE SCHOOL taught each different field this theological difference that Williams tried to better WOULD NOT EFFECT EDUCATION. I wish this and not a state by state basis ruled Bush's thinking on C&S but instead he seems to have sided with a particularity on this particular(c/e) which for me I had id'd with Lutheranism. I doubt anything close is coming from K however. we have double learning going on on this board but should the nation ever learn from our own faliures to communicate it would be better for the states too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:53 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 222 (94414)
03-24-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
03-24-2004 3:38 AM


I think (but I may be documentable wrong onthis one) that we DO have the same kind of thing which BACKFIRED on Lewontin for instance in the case of drug delievery stratgies in economically (failing) pharmas. Lewontin rests his TRIPLE helix instead on a reference to past Scottish practices than noticing as I said that we have indeed post-Sputnik the same Darwin thing that was a Lysenko thing. I started to think this was true when I was reading a translation of DOSTAL who continued to work up plants around where Mendel was. The book on Stableizing Evolution via Selection ideed appears to me as "regime" of anti-Wolfram claims rather than A Gladyshev extension of Einstein's not FIRST knowing of GIbbs' work here. Once again Creationism is not Lamarkianism but symptoms are symptoms no matter the diagnosis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 67 of 222 (96621)
04-01-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Syamsu
03-27-2004 9:25 AM


Dawkins does mean "inclusive" but I could not square this with the rejection of the brain of a mammal simply ON TOP of a reptile's. Once I "included" the cold bloods I was able to reject the literal selfish notion but if I only thought of verts from a warm blood division of the plethora of forms the id would not have my ego if I so willed. That last is specious as well. Mark didnt want me to respond to him directly so I put it here S. Hope for no worries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 03-27-2004 9:25 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-05-2004 2:52 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 70 of 222 (97878)
04-05-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
04-05-2004 4:28 AM


Dear Crashfrog,
I thought it rationally possible that my prediliction(sp?) for baraminology might have been out of spite but now that I have had over a year past Gould's passing to mull over his "tome" and compare it to a video tape debate with Johnson by comparision to Eldrideges' distancing from Provine's taped conviction (which I knew any way by personal contact)I now DO understand how anti-Gould perspectives specially aired"" here on EvC in the name of Dakwins or not are CORRECT in a particular way. There has indeed been a tendency in the post Mayr/myGrandfathers' generation of biologist to cause a trend in thinking that I was only aware of its limits by by reading and understanding creationism. So though one might indeed remain distant to the actual research and still find room to criticize the mindframe itself it does begin to appear to me to ONLY address the current observations. Provine for instance acosted Johnson for NOT providing his own idea on how biological change works. This tact would not and did not work "against"(sic.) me for I have some ideas of the business that explains current observations as well. I am now able to dilineate the Provine/Gould/Dawwkins era FROM a LARGER section of scholarhip into our generation and before this generation after the syntheses. Veblen had noted in 1898 (see in Darwinism and the American Intellectual A Book of Readings 1967 p)"In all this economic science is living over again in its turn the experiences which the natural sciences passed through some time back. In the natural sciences the work of the taxonomist was and continues to be of great value, but the scientists grew restless under the regime of symmetry and system-making. They took to asking why, and so shifted their inquires form the structure of the coral reefs to the stucture of teh habits of life that lives in and by them."
Your evo suppport I can find is no differnt from remaining in trajectory with Gould,Provine,Eldridge and the forward processing which can be read otherwise espeically as Veblen also noted THEN "But all that may be necessary here is to point out that, by descent an by psychological content, this constraining normality is of a spirtual kind." That is why the notion of mind "frame" exists. God Bless. The problem is that when comparing Gould and Dawkins one does not get a common WHY even thought Johnson and ICR aremore generally homogenous on this there is still "dissent" despite Provine's strained exclaimations that Eldgridge disclaimed socially.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2004 4:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 76 of 222 (98199)
04-06-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by hitchy
04-06-2004 3:17 PM


Re: Why time?
There is a hitch but I am not ready to reveal it all. I found an excercise in the use of "sense" that uses no more complicated notion than conditional probablity. I would have every thing with only four real numbers (a,b,c,d) granted in the residue of that common sense. It must be common and not under dispute however. consensus no...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by hitchy, posted 04-06-2004 3:17 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 95 of 222 (99494)
04-12-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
04-06-2004 5:16 PM


Re: What?
S,
If behavior proceeds morphic alteration and is before genetic change in some instances how can we know that worship simplistic worhisp behaivor does not randomly occurr formerly after an imbalance that spritual access whether correctly relvealed or not fixes?
I have no problem if you wish to deny the first clause as I am confident I can manipulate that but granted or prooved it is beyond me how one would deny the simplistic evidentiarly for the simple when there IS SOME probablity otherwise because after THAT it would only be up to GOD anyway and G-d could change the very behavior as well with us unawares.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 04-06-2004 5:16 PM nator has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 106 of 222 (100065)
04-14-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by zephyr
04-14-2004 5:10 PM


Re: Bad examples
A loved one is the devil vs we are born selfish therefore teach (kids) altruism?
Why do you guys have to make this so complicated?? I will admit you are all much more "introspective" than Gould and Provine combined which is the reason I come back to read and right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by zephyr, posted 04-14-2004 5:10 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Loudmouth, posted 04-14-2004 8:12 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 140 of 222 (101020)
04-19-2004 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Loudmouth
04-14-2004 8:12 PM


Re: Bad examples
ribs accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Loudmouth, posted 04-14-2004 8:12 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 148 of 222 (101270)
04-20-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Chiroptera
04-20-2004 4:03 PM


but if the "dialectic" is IN the vacuum (see Hume's work that either woke up Kant and/or speaks of where the "pure math" of form change in your flying case may harbor the dialectic(sic!) for anyone) then I might be able to argue your atmospher of flight as well. After I saw the African salamder with RIBS poking thru the skin naturally I was IMMEDIATELY disabused of the common notion on seeing the form of a flying lizard that it too might be thought in your squirells' frame when not fame. Provine to ask Johson how does the rat fly? failed to use ALREADY passed notion of De Vries' non-lineaon.
-------------
All things ingood order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Chiroptera, posted 04-20-2004 4:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024