FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) What was the Golden Rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I thought it was "he who has all the gold makes the rules."

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 03:04 PM) Please share with us your infinite widsom of Bible passages that literally state the Sun revolves around the Earth? He didn't say the bible said that, He merely said that a heliocentric viewpoint is contradicted by the bible. I think that the supposed existence of a firmament, first noted in Genesis and also popping up in Psalms, Isaiah, Malachi . . . certainly qualifies as being counter to our current understanding of our solar system.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) When old farts like FlaSoxxJim and I were kids this device was wireless, now wired is more popular. I'd bet everyone here has one. Any guesses? Maybe not wired, so much as UNDERwired.

Electrosynthesis? I'm assuming you meant electrophoresis. And if your kid is running DNA gel separations and doing some genetics experiments than I'd say she's better off than lots of students. As I said before, American science education is in a shambles and I'm the last person to defend its current state. I don't undervalue the importance of math, physics, et al, and don't deny they are at the heart of biology. But I disagree that our need for mathematicians and physicists is any more (or less) than our need to turn out capable life scientists.

Christian thugs blow up abortion clinics, shoot doctors, and kill homosexuals. So much for a "Religon of Peace" Except I don't believe it, of course. They may be thugs alright, but theor acts are far from Christian. Now you can go back to painting the world with that wide-ass brush you like to use.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) Behind the question of whether the NeoDawinian context of ENS is reasonable or not there are much larger questions: 1) Has the NeoDarwinian context led to declining interest in science in America? Recent studies show that are high tech mind wealth is eroding even faster than our buying power. While I agree 100% that science education iis in the s***ter in America, even you would be hard pressed to find a between neoDarwinian studies and a decline in the science literacy in American students. To the contrary, I think the popular culture evolution "controversy" probably aids in the weeding out poor candidates for careers in science.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) Who woulda thunk it about Marty and the Doc! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfODSPIYwpQ Soxy scooped you: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...dpost&p=1031962 Funny stuff.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) ok, whip it out...I wanna see "ID." you can't be jewish Nope, I'm goyim through and through, despite what the yutz (aka shlong aka shmeckel aka shvanz, putz, shmuck. . . ) may have to say about it. But my Irish bubbe on my Dad's side hung with lots of bubbes of miscelaneous eastern European descent back in her time and learned to make some seriously good Jewish food. Her Polish food in particular was mighty good. In college I had to teach a Polish friend about the joys of good keeshka.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) you're such a schmuck don't I know it. But at least I'm not a schlamiel. Though at times I've been a schlamazel.

QUOTE(SnB @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) yutz? wow, must be a southern thing Southern Israel maybe. Love that Yiddish slang.

QUOTE(SnB @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) "this was just inside of her, how beautiful." I thought that was what most guys say to their yutz after sex.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) I looked at every member of the cast, and I only recognized her name. That kind of surprised me, you would think a comedy sketch show for kids like that would have spawned a few more recognizable stars after an 11 year run. Alanis was the exception and not the rule. Keenan Thompson is also. More often, the only time you hear about child actors after their 15 minutes are up is when they go into drug rehab of get arrested for something stupid. Plus, all those YCDTOT kids were Canadians, so you can'r expect that much from them.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) Sounds like you'd be happier if you moved to Japan. I hear they got some hot trannys there.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) Im surprised that "You cant do that on television" isnt on more lists here. Double Dare wouldnt have their slime if YCDTOT didnt make slime cool. I always loved the skits that took place in the diner, with all of the bad food. And Alanis Morrisette probably would never have gottten anywhere without that show. Some people might think that would have been a good thing, but I like her.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:54 AM) As usual you are wrong. But I'm not surprised since your capacity to reason in science seems limited to Biology. Any good student of science knows that which is unexplainable in Biology falls to the realm of Physics. Why? Because Biology is for the more part void of mathematical reasoning to explain that which it can not test. We have covered this topic before & I have provided you the links on prevailing theories relating to quantum physics & how they gravitate to a Divine Agent explanation. Let me try to summarize it again: "An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state." The prevailing theory is that a universal observer must exist (metaphysical origin). What is most surprising about this theory is that though it is new to most of us born in the 20th century it is not new in terms of history. It turns out well before quantum physics experiments came into being that a philosopher had worked out a similar explanation (1734) that predates Darwin's work. http://thenewphilosophyonline.org/philosop...x.php?page=1001 So that begs to ask the question is it reasonable for a Biology teacher to teach ENS with NeoDarwinian context in light of the universal observer theory presented from QP? The answer is obviously no because physics is more capable of explaining that which leans towards a metaphysical origin. You are correct, I have no credentials beyond the biological sciences. But I've as much layman's interest in other fields - cosmology, quantum physics, etc. - as anybody. I also agree that there seems to be a high percentage of spiritual scientists in those fields. But whether the spiritual were drawn to study the heavens or whether study of the heavens has instilled the spirituality is a chicken/egg question that I don't believe has been looked at. That which is unexplainable in biology often does fall to the realm of physics. Just as often, however, it merely falls to the next generation of biologists and the advances in understanding and technology available to them. It's vitally important to bear in mind the same is true of physics. At any point in time, it may be tempting and easy (if intellectually unfulfilling) to conclude that which is unexplainable in physcs fall to the realm of the Divine Agent. But that may just be reflective of the state of the science. With the next generations of physicists and tools, much of what is unexplanable today will become testable and eventually explanable.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 08:27 AM) Many scientists have come to the conclusion, if not that only the existence of a Divine Being can explain all that cannot be explained, at least that the scientific method will not yield inexhaustible knowledge about the nature of reality. Hence, there is more and more openness in the scientific community to allow for "transcendental" causes.l I agree that religious/spiritual perspectives should be allowed in the classroom. Oops! I let the cat out of the bag. They ARE allowed in the classroom, as long as the viewpoints are not "sectarian"; that is, a school could present the Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, etc. explanations for reality. Problem is school administrators have become completely spooked by the ACLU-types and avoid any mention of anything "transcendent." In the end, that's poor education because we have traded "wisdom" for "rote" knowledge. Scientists have never been bound together by some athiests' oath, and there are spiritual scientists on about the same order as there arre spiritiual members of all walks of life. But so long as any speculated divine causes remain outside the realm of thhe testable, they will remain outside the realm of science. I quite agree with your second paragraoh. Exposure, in a non-sectarian way, to a diversity of world spiritual and philisophical viewpoints in the classroom is invaluable, and it is a shame that it gets caught up in sectarian church-state arguments. Everything in its place, however. The global diversity of transcendent viewpoints should be taught, but not as part of a science curriculum. I'm confident you agree.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 08:22 PM) Good for Japan. However, in America, I'm a big one on stuff that has been scientifically supported. I don't need to read that solar eclipses are because God is quite possibly pissed. God gets drunk?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 08:12 PM) Understanding ENS may or may not land someone a job. It led me to a job. The job was teaching evolutionary ecology, mind you. You know, I think there are parts of your post that are not entirely out to lunch. I agree that since science takes the divine off the table as a testable hypothesis (but not as a possibility) to explain the origins of organic diversity, then yes it is logical to gravitate toward a neoDarwinian aproach to explanation. The only difference is that I see that as a good thing. Not because of any belief in the impossibility of a Divine Agent. Rather, it is because of the impossibility that science can ever find meaning in the untestable or incorporate such into its explanations.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 07:54 PM) Cool. Who will be the first to put a message in a bottle? Sting? Sounds like a cool gig. Unfortunately we will have the Gulf and the Florida peninsula between us, as I am on the east coast. I travel a long way to share homebrew though.

Kinsey was actually a great scientist - as long as he was studying insects and not human sexual response. The rest of your post is sufficiently out there to amaze and amuse.

Love that Onion.

Ren and Stimpy. It was like the warner Bros. cartoons on acid when it came out.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) I am thinking about renting The Aristocrats and it sounds like it will be either a riot, or horrible... Without scanning 80 pages here, what did people think of it??? I suggest watching it with your grandparents. It's safe. Heck, it's got Bob Sagett in it so how bad can it be?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) Brokeback to the future Finally that third Back to the Future film has value.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 01:47 PM) I think most would say definately off center, but not really straight... Well, how about narrow, then? I Kid Because I Care.