Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Well, it is kind of my job to know that stuff. I would be remiss if I didn't find it an easy read.
"Light of the World", "Lord of Heavenly Light" -- Mithras
"Bringer of light", "Lord of the Light", "The bread of life, the son of man, the Word" -- Horus
"the Light of the world", "the Lost Light" -- Krishna
"the Way, the Truth, the Life", "the Prince of Peace, the Good Shepherd", "the Light of the World" -- Buddha
Interesting indeed.
Care to take a guess which of these were born to a virgin, near the winter solstice, for the salvation of mankind?
And the worst estimate today is . . . because . . . .
humble hemorrhoid-free placemarker
All the court did in this case is to say that Pandas represents speech that can be censored. I am sincerely unclear on what grounds. It's not like the book's authors are soliciting perjury, or sanctioning the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded building. Jeepers, nude dancing has "free speech" protections these days. Do you mean to say that a scholarly work does not, if an interest group rises up to protest it, and an interested, sympathetic judge is willing to accede to their demands against the interests of all other parties to the dispute? What kind of America does that make?
We are supposed to be a system organized under a rule of law, not a rule of men -- be they judges, or just a braying mob....
Personally, I think that "live and let live" -- toleration -- is the American way.
And who are these government officials? They are school board members, who presumably hold their offices so long as the electorate (that is, parents in this case) agree to their tenure. There is some confusion at the moment on that subject; but it'll all come out in the wash.
Are you suggesting that the rights of judges in America are superior to the the rights of free men, to the will of the people as expressed through the franchise? If so, please go take another look at the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
I can't stop laughing.
"And the worst estimate today is . . . because . . . ."
If you don't like science just say so. You want ID (creationism) to be science yet you have nothing for disdain for science.
BTW, the best estimate has not been close to 7 billion years for decades.
So do I, BB. Who doesn't? But that's not what the case was all about. Have you made a serious attempt to read the judge's opinion? Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..
Thanks.
Of course they did -- once they had sufficient reason to do so. Scientific progress was of great help in this regard.
There is no "Great Wall of China" between faith and reason.
In case everybody missed this webcast, they have posted archival copies. These are pointers to streaming video of Ken Miller's talk about ID and his experiences at the Dover trial.
The video is nearly two hours long. There are two links, one for Windows Media Player and one for Real Player. They process at 384k bps, so don't bother if you have dial-up.
Windows Media: mms://mv-helix1.cwru.edu/a/2006/biology/intelligent_design_384kbps_01_03_2006_1.wmv
Real Player: rtsp://mv-helix1.cwru.edu/a/2006/biology/intelligent_design_384kbps_01_03_2006_1.rm
You: Of course they did -- once they had sufficient reason to do so. Scientific progress was of great help in this regard.
Huh?! I think I'm not getting something here.
Try this: A Gentle Introduction to the Universal Algorithmic Agent AIXI. I found it after a similar discussion with tortoise a while back, and was able to get the general idea (at least I think so) without having the ideal prerequisites. Algorithmic information theory is a fascinating field.
The judge's opinion is just that -- an opinion. In the sense of the ancient Greek term, doxa, which must be contrasted with another Greek term, episteme. The latter refers to truthful knowledge. The former, to whatever the spirit of the age thinks "the truth" is.
Regarding the opinion itself, I think Judge Jones should have spent a little more time analyzing the constitutional requirements before rendering it.
But I gather he was just too busy imagining himself as the great presider over the Second Coming of the Scopes trial. FWIW.
Again, Patrick -- do you want a rule of law that is equal for all, or do you prefer a rule of men -- provided they think like you do?
For the benefit of the bandwidth-challenged, can you give us a Reader's Digest summary of the high points?
"Any judge will tell you that they welcome the opportunity to have important cases on their dockets," he said in an interview. "That's why they take these jobs."
Spoken like a true defender of science and proponent of Constitutional law.
Even better, the reference bibliographies in his papers are nearly ideal reading lists for the foundational mathematics, including some key topics that he does not write about. The idea of predictive error complexity actually comes from some seminal work by Feder, Merhav, and Gutman in the mid-90s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.