Texas has problem recognizing a "black hole"

[Bud]

" A comment about Dallas County's central collection system for tickets ignited a controversy when Judge Thomas Jones claimed Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield's phrase about a "black hole" was racially insensitive"

 

Black Hole Video

 

Seems like no one in Texas knows about astronomy.

 

Where is Whip when we need him?

[Whip]

I read it about that earlier today.

 

Nothin surprises me any more.

 

[Lawman]

 

 

ROFLMAO!!!

 

 

[Mike]

Wow! Talk about stupidity . . . sometimes it's embarrassing to be a member of the human race.

 

However, I'm reminded that sometimes totally asinine opinions, born of total ignorance, can have a profoundly negative impact on innocent people. I'm reminded of the incident in the District of Columbia a couple of years ago in which an individual used the term "niggardly" to discuss a miserly budget allocation by Congress. The firestorm that erupted--and which was fueled by the appalling lack of literacy in our society--ended with the individual's dismissal and left anyone with half a brain dumbfounded. The guy was later reinstated after the Mayor figured out that "niggardly" was not a racial epithet.

 

As NAACP Chairman Julian Bond noted after that incident, people should not have to "censor" their language to meet other "people's lack of understanding."

[Quinn]

When Mr. Black, the speaker of the house in North Carolina, was being investigated for graft and corruption; one of the louder black leaders was up in arms about it. Typical white justice going after the black man, racially modivated, etc. Someone finally explained to him, after getting his quotes for print, that Mr. Black was a white guy. Oops, never mind.

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Nothin surprises me any more.

 

Not even LA County's "master/slave" debacle?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

We need to send him a movie:

 

The Black Hole

[Wheels Rollin']

Nothin surprises me any more.

+1 -- and how sad is that? Ignorance and hypersensitivity don't make good partners...

 

~ Bill

[motoguy128]

Nothin surprises me any more.

+1 -- and how sad is that? Ignorance and hypersensitivity don't make good partners...

 

~ Bill

 

I've found it shocking that somone with the last name of Obama has made it this far. It's given me some faith in humanity that he's doing very well.

 

Fotunately a large portion of the most ignorrant don't seem to know how to regiaster to vote. Those that do, already vote predictabily for one party or the other based on racial views... on both sides and ortunately cancel each other out so we hopefully cna focus on cantidates strenght, weaknesses and platforms rather than what their name is, or what they look like.

[Jerry in Monument]

Having spent anumber of years living in a suburb of Dallas, I was subjected routinely to the rants and ravings of John Wiley Price.

 

I have to catagorize him in the same league as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton:

 

"Professional Black"

 

Except JWP may be even more of a loon. Rarely have I ever heard more devicive rhetoric than from those three. They seem to thrive on imflamming racial issues rather than trying to heal.

[Matts_12GS]

They seem to thrive on imflamming racial issues rather than trying to heal.

 

Makes sense to me...

If they solve the actual problem they'll lose their prestige and power.

 

Sadly, too much political life in America today is about self aggrandizement more than actually accomplishing anything. Congress and the presidency have become beauty contests, little more than theater.

 

Nero fiddled...

[DavidEBSmith]

Isn't it Texas where the state education agency's director of science was forced to "resign" because she was in favor of teaching evolution? Seems like the science education is somewhat lacking down there. Kinda hope the folks running the Johnson Space Center went to school out-of-state.

[Albert]

When I lived in Tulsa the Texas school system taught that Texas didn't slide into the Gulf of Mexico because Oklahoma sucked.

 

Then again that may have been a Sooners Longhorns thing.

[azkaisr]

Matt:

 

This isn't anything new. Go watch Advise and Consent (1962)

with Henry Fonda. 40 years ago it was just as bad as it was today and probably as bad as it was 140 years ago.

 

The audience is just bigger

 

Kaisr

[Quinn]

I think of more as political blackmail. Accuse your opponent of something for which there can be no proof (I'm offended) and demand an apology. If he feels he has no reason to apologize, then he is just digging his hole deeper. Next thing you know, the only way out for your opponent is to start giving away scholarships and jobs. Mission accomplished.

 

Jessie Jackson has done this so many times to corporate America it's amazing that he still gets away with it.

 

 

[Lawman]

Isn't it Texas where the state education agency's director of science was forced to "resign" because she was in favor of teaching evolution? Seems like the science education is somewhat lacking down there. Kinda hope the folks running the Johnson Space Center went to school out-of-state.

 

Why would you be uncomfortable knowing that Christians were running the Johnson Space Center?

[smiller]

Why would you be uncomfortable knowing that Christians were running the Johnson Space Center?

Why would you link Christians to David's statement?

[Lawman]

Why would you be uncomfortable knowing that Christians were running the Johnson Space Center?

Why would you link Christians to David's statement?

 

His post suggests that if one believes in creationism, as most Christians do, as opposed to evolution that one is somehow not able to receive a good education in Texas..If that is what he meant I would take isuue with that..If that is not what he meant I'd like for him to elaborate.

[DavidEBSmith]

First, I think you're wrong to say "most Christians" believe in creationism "as opposed to evolution". For one, the Catholic Church doesn't "oppose" evolution, nor do most traditional Protestant churches.

 

Second, it has been established that belief in creationism is inversely correlated with education. In other words, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to accept evolution as opposed to creationism, and the less educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in creationism as compared to evolution. I submit to you that rocket scientists should be highly educated.

 

Third, if the schools in Texas are teaching creationism as science, as they seem to want to do, they are doing a poor job, because creationism is fundamentally a religious belief and in scientific terms is a weak theory at best. If Texas children who are growing up to be rocket scientists are being taught that creationism is scientifically sound, either they are being given a flawed understanding of the scientific method or they are being shown an objectively exaggerated view of the strength of the creationist worldview.

 

"And then something magic and unexplainable happens" is a scientifically poor explanation, whether for the sun coming up, why humans have five fingers on each hand, or how a solid fuel rocket motor works.

[Bud]

First, I think you're wrong to say "most Christians" believe in creationism "as opposed to evolution". For one, the Catholic Church doesn't "oppose" evolution, nor do most traditional Protestant churches.

 

Second, it has been established that belief in creationism is inversely correlated with education. In other words, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to accept evolution as opposed to creationism, and the less educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in creationism as compared to evolution. I submit to you that rocket scientists should be highly educated.

 

Third, if the schools in Texas are teaching creationism as science, as they seem to want to do, they are doing a poor job, because creationism is fundamentally a religious belief and in scientific terms is a weak theory at best. If Texas children who are growing up to be rocket scientists are being taught that creationism is scientifically sound, either they are being given a flawed understanding of the scientific method or they are being shown an objectively exaggerated view of the strength of the creationist worldview.

 

"And then something magic and unexplainable happens" is a scientifically poor explanation, whether for the sun coming up, why humans have five fingers on each hand, or how a solid fuel rocket motor works.

 

It is obvious, so my hand will fit in my riding gloves.

 

 

Well put. My pastor points out that science and religion answer different questions. As a Christian, that works for me, but then again, I believe in the Big Bang.

[Lawman]

Isn't it Texas where the state education agency's director of science was forced to "resign" because she was in favor of teaching evolution? Seems like the science education is somewhat lacking down there. Kinda hope the folks running the Johnson Space Center went to school out-of-state.

 

Considering the content of the original post I believe your post was an unprovoked and tasteless attempt to link belief in creationism to ignorant people. I won't disparage those who believe in evolution as opposed to creationism and I don't appreciate those who disparage others who believe in creationism as opposed to evolution. As for Mrs. Comer, she was not terminated for teaching creationism. She was terminated because her boss/bosses believed she had failed to maintain neutrality on the issue as required..

[smiller]

Considering the content of the original post I believe your post was an unprovoked and tasteless attempt to link belief in creationism to ignorant people.

'Ignorant' is a rather emotionally-charged word and no one has used it so far except you. But there is a link bewteen belief in Creationism and educational level, take it for what you will.

 

As for Mrs. Comer, she was not terminated for teaching creationism. She was terminated because her boss/bosses believed she had failed to maintain neutrality on the issue as required..

How can a governing board set policy when everyone is required to have a 'neutral' position on important issues? Were any of those who supported the teaching of religion in a science class fired for not being 'neutral'?

 

 

[Whip]

I always thought Ben Stein was a smart dude.....

 

 

Ya learn something new every day.....

 

 

I wonder what our own Pilgrim would have to say about your statement????

 

 

[Bob Palin]

Ben Stein is clearly an intelligent man but certain areas of his thought are clouded by superstition and nonsense, i.e. religion.

[Whip]

Ben Stein is clearly an intelligent man but certain areas of his thought are clouded by superstition and nonsense, i.e. religion.

 

Soooooooooooooooooo...religion is superstitious nonsense????????

 

 

 

 

 

[smiller]

"Unlike other popular documentary films, "Expelled" isn't one-sided..."

 

ROFL. Yes, I'm sure that it would do Michael Moore proud.

 

If Ben Stein bases his views that everything's OK with the economy on the same thought processes he uses to understand science then... I think we may need to start worrying...

 

religion is superstitious nonsense????????

The term 'religion' paints with such a broad brush that I don't think I'd make any generalizations about it without some definitions, but the specific belief that the Universe was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago is superstitious nonsense.

 

[Lawman]

" but the specific belief that the Universe was created in six days a few thousand years ago is superstitious nonsense.

 

If you call that superstitious nonsense what do you call the belief that you came from a wad of slime?

[smiller]

If you call that superstitious nonsense what do you call the belief that you came from a wad of slime?

A conclusion based on the best available evidence.

[Lawman]

If you call that superstitious nonsense what do you call the belief that you came from a wad of slime?

A conclusion based on the best available evidence.

 

And I'll disagree with your conclusion but I'll not disparage you for it..

[Bob Palin]

If you call that superstitious nonsense what do you call the belief that you came from a wad of slime?

A conclusion based on the best available evidence.

I rarely do this but

 

+1

[Lawman]

If you call that superstitious nonsense what do you call the belief that you came from a wad of slime?

A conclusion based on the best available evidence.

I rarely do this but

 

+1

 

I would be interested in knowing if you guys have put as much study into the theory of intelligent design as you have the theory of evolution?

[smiller]

And I'll disagree with your conclusion but I'll not disparage you for it..

Same here, I apologize if my phrasing offends you and please believe as you see fit. But note that simply having a a personal religious belief is a different thing entirely than trying to inject it into a science classroom. When anyone does the latter they open themselves up to criticism, not for the belief itself but for the action.

 

I would be interested in knowing if you guys have put as much study into the theory of intelligent design as you have the theory of evolution?

I had a fair amount of that in my philosophy classes... which is exactly where it belonged.

 

[Lawman]

[quote= had a fair amount of that in my philosophy classes... which is exactly where it belonged.

 

I trust you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical of what you were taught in philosophy class regarding intelligent design..

[smiller]

I trust you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical of what you were taught in philosophy class regarding intelligent design..

Generally I was taught that it was common among many belief systems for there to be a purpose to the Universe beyond its mere existence. And FWIW my personal take on that is that it may be true, although the nature of such a purpose is ultimately unknowable by me, you, or any particular religious theology.

 

But I'm not sure what you're really trying to say... that there is a mere possibility of intelligent design, or that the version in the Bible is literally true, and/or that version should be taught in a science classroom, or..?

[Dave McReynolds]

The tension that the subject of evolution vs. intelligent design raises is interesting to me, because it seems out of proportion to the threat posed to either science or religion.

 

For example, no matter what any science teacher may say in a classroom about the possibility that there might be intelligent design, it won't have the slightest influence on any physics, chemistry, biology, etc., experiment performed. Unless, of course, the experiment is designed to show whether there is, in fact, intelligent design, if such a thing is even possible.

 

Science tolerates a broad degree of assumptions in fields such as psychology and environmental science. Practitioners of both, such as Freud and those who are concerned about the human contribution to global warming, have been accused of drawing a lot of conclusions based on some rather shaky foundations (sound similar to religion?), but it doesn't deter practitioners of either from being included under the umbrella of science, even though there are those who would like it otherwise. So why do some scientists feel that when the "big bang" is discussed, it would it cause the hallowed walls of science to crumble to mention that there is a rather large belief system in the world that the whole thing was created by God? When the latest theories of the universe require us to believe that up to 80% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected by any known instrument?

 

I notice the same unreasonable reaction to science among religious creationists. I participate on another board having to do with traditional archery, where the members are heavily weighted toward fundamentalist Christians. Let an article in a bow magazine mention something in passing about geological epochs, maybe just something the writer mentions to describe some country he is passing through, and the members of this board will be all over it as sacreligious. And believe me, if I try to interject any of my moderate views there, the hostility is palpable. There is nothing any scientist is doing that will restrict the right of anyone to believe any religious doctrine he chooses, particularly in this country. So why the overreaction from both sides?

 

I happen to believe that whenever such great tension exists, there is very good reason to believe that both sides are missing the boat. I don't know what we are missing, but I would love to be around to find out.

[smiller]

For example, no matter what any science teacher may say in a classroom about the possibility that there might be intelligent design, it won't have the slightest influence on any physics, chemistry, biology, etc., experiment performed.

Physics, chemistry, biology, etc., are not the only things being learned in the science classroom, and not even the most important. The most critical skill being taught is a method for rational, objective analysis of an unknown, and in this way science and religion could not be any more distinct. When you try to combine the two you not only denigrate a proper understanding of the scientific method but perhaps a proper understanding of religion as well.

 

And with respect to the scientific method 'missing' the why of creation by only looking at the how, it is in fact is not missing anything because it is not even looking for the why. Science is not equipped for that and if you want those sorts of answers you need to look elsewhere.

 

Oil and water.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

And with respect to the scientific method 'missing' the why of creation by only looking at the how, it is in fact is not missing anything because it is not even looking for the why. Science is not equipped for that and if you want those sorts of answers you need to look elsewhere.

 

Exactly my point. The goals of science and religion are both the same: to understand the nature of the universe. To exclude a large part of the universe from your exploration risks that your understanding will be false.

 

For example, assume that your goal is to understand banking, and your method of understanding banking is to explore everything to do with the physical structure of banks, right down to the molecules that make up the bricks. And this method of exploring banking had been developed over several thousand years, and was respected in the highest educational institutions. Practitioners of this science became quite haughty when it was suggested that they explore the transactions that went on inside the bank building, because "it is in fact is not missing anything because it is not even looking for the why. Science is not equipped for that and if you want those sorts of answers you need to look elsewhere."

 

And, in case you think I'm just picking on science, I could apply the same analogy to religion.

[smiller]

I'm afraid that the banking analogy is somewhat flawed in that scientific investigation is appropriate for both the exterior of the bank and its internal processes, if they can be objectively tested. That is the only barrier that exists.

 

Scientists are not being haughty in refusing to investigate the supernatural, it's just that they can't do so with the tools they have. Do you any ways that might employ the scientific method to investigate the nature and existence of God? What tests would you devise? Using science to try to determine a possible reason for the evolution of life is as useless as relying on religion to explain the process.

 

And on a side note I fail to see why the fact that some in the science profession and some religious fundamentalists can occasionally share the human trait of pigheadedness is particularly germane. Biases always exist but I don't think such ad hominem implications are very illustrative of anything. Better perhaps to argue the merits of the case vs. the frailties of those making them.

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Well, let's approach it from a different angle. If the goal of science and religion is to understand the nature of the universe, there ought to be some evidence as to whether either science or religion is on the right track.

 

Why would you want to understand the nature of the universe? I suppose there are a lot of reasons you might pick from, such as curiousity, for example. But curiousity, and many of the other reasons you might choose, have a fundamental root, which is the survival of our species, and is about as basic a drive as we can come up with.

 

Let's go back to the beginnings of science and religion, 5,000-10,000 years ago. Imagine that there had been no scientific study at all from then until now. Imagine that there had been no religious studies from then until now. Under which scenario do you believe we, as a species would be more likely to survive the next 1,000 years? Science and religion? No science? No religion? Neither?

 

Do the answers suggest to you that there might be basic flaws in either discipline?

[Bob Palin]

Science will investigate the 'purpose' of existence when evidence is discovered to suggest that such a thing exists, until then it can't be done.

 

Religion's only purpose to dominate the masses through fear and superstition giving control to a small elite, you only have to look back at the last 10,000 years of history to see evidence for that.

[smiller]

Do the answers suggest to you that there might be basic flaws in either discipline?

Flaws exist when you try to use either discipline to provide answers outside of its scope.

 

But I understand what you're getting at and I'm not trying to say that mankind can't obtain value from what both science and religion have to offer, but they are nevertheless distinct entities. By all means teach them both, just not in the same classroom.

 

Perhaps to better understand where you're coming from I should again ask, with regard to understanding the nature of the Universe what is science not doing that it should be?

[azkaisr]

If you call that superstitious nonsense what do you call the belief that you came from a wad of slime?

A conclusion based on the best available evidence.

I rarely do this but

 

+1

 

I would be interested in knowing if you guys have put as much study into the theory of intelligent design as you have the theory of evolution?

 

And I would be interested to know if you are open to other forms of intelligent design Lawman. No offense meant, but I am not all that sure that the intelligent design is really what they are speaking of here or are they really trying to project a very specific dogma on the rest of us. Being a sometimes practicing Pastafarian myself, I too think that there is a great designer out there.

 

 

The world needs more Pirates. Then we would get some real answers to these important questions. Now if the schools give my belief equal time, I would be ok in mentioning other perspectives on the matter.

 

Kaisr

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm afraid that the banking analogy is somewhat flawed in that scientific investigation is appropriate for both the exterior of the bank and its internal processes, if they can be objectively tested. That is the only barrier that exists.

 

It's just an analogy. Of course I wouldn't expect science to miss anything as obvious as banking transactions if it were trying to understand the banking system. If I knew what it was missing, and what religion was missing, I would be the next Jesus or Einstein, and I'm neither.

 

But since science has brought us to the eve of our destruction as a species, and since religion has been used in large part to enslave us, I think it's fair to say that they're both missing something fundamental in their quest to understand the nature of the universe.

[smiller]

Of course I wouldn't expect science to miss anything as obvious as banking transactions if it were trying to understand the banking system.

Even though mortgage banking regulators apparently can... (ka-thunk)

 

But since science has brought us to the eve of our destruction as a species, and since religion has been used in large part to enslave us, I think it's fair to say that they're both missing something fundamental in their quest to understand the nature of the universe.

Flaws that are perhaps more related to the beings trying to use the tools than the tools themselves.

[Bob Palin]

But since science has brought us to the eve of our destruction as a species, and since religion has been used in large part to enslave us, I think it's fair to say that they're both missing something fundamental.

Now we are getting somewhere! Neither has science brought us to the eve of destruction nor has religion enslaved us, it's the application of those systems that has had the effect. That application is the result of human nature and it is a change in fundamental human nature that is needed to prevent us from eventually destroying ourselves. It's unlikely that we can choose to change human nature overnight but we should work on a philosophy that enables us to discover the truths about the universe and use them to our advantage without hurting each other, and without imposing control through fear of the unknown or imposition of superstitious beliefs.

Frankly I think there is little chance for us, but to answer your previous question, we would be much more likely to survive the next thousand years without religion than we would be without science. Religion is basically divisive - just look around - science is basically inclusive - everybody can benefit whether they believe in it or not.

[Couchrocket]

If you call that superstitious nonsense what do you call the belief that you came from a wad of slime?

A conclusion based on the best available evidence.

I rarely do this but

 

+1

 

Depends on what you call evidence. Apparently what you call evidence assumes a priori only evidence evinced from the use of classic scientific methodology? Am I correct?

[smiller]

Depends on what you call evidence. Apparently what you call evidence assumes a priori only evidence evinced from the use of classic scientific methodology?

As opposed to..?

[Bob Palin]

Depends on what you call evidence. Apparently what you call evidence assumes a priori only evidence evinced from the use of classic scientific methodology?

As opposed to..?

Well, there is simple physical evidence, of course that's utterly missing in supernatural cases.

[Couchrocket]

I trust you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical of what you were taught in philosophy class regarding intelligent design..

Generally I was taught that it was common among many belief systems for there to be a purpose to the Universe beyond its mere existence. And FWIW my personal take on that is that it may be true, although the nature of such a purpose is ultimately unknowable by me, you, or any particular religious theology.

 

But I'm not sure what you're really trying to say... that there is a mere possibility of intelligent design, or that the version in the Bible is literally true, and/or that version should be taught in a science classroom, or..?

 

Let me risk putting words in lawman's mouth.

 

I think what he may be getting at is the sort of thing that John Sanford (inventor of the gene gun) has had to say recently about the degradation of the human genome and its implications for the current "understanding" in the scientific community.

 

He also may have been referring to folk like Gerald Schroeder, and Roy Abraham Vergese, and others who have spoken eloquently and competently about the level of complexity we see in studying living structures at the microbiological level, and their suggestions about not only the level of complexity, but apparently irreducible specified complexity. Not to mention the impact their thinking has had on folk like Anthony Flew.

 

I'm not too worried about the supposed divide that currently exists, nor am I worried about silly pronouncements that the more educated one is the more likely one is to believe in "this or that." It is as likely an indictment of the state of the education system in the west as anything else -- especially in the sciences which were once committed to true openness to where the evidence leads, rather than to "the party line" where it now stands. I actually feel sorry for those naive enough to think that the current "scientific community" is truly neutral and willing go joyfully wherever the evidence does lead. It has been some time since that was true, if it ever was. Evidence of this is easy to find, as in the early resistance to the concept of the big bang itself, since it flew in the face of the steady state theorists of the time who saw a steady state universe as more in keeping with their philosophical presuppositions than a "the universe started at a given place and time," possibility, and the implications of that. Steady state was more "comfortable" with the completely materialist worldview. (Do I have to define that again?)

 

More and more good scientists are coming out of the closet these days and admitting that the king has no clothes... and that is one of Ben Stein's legitimate main points in his otherwise flawed movie.

 

So, I'm not that concerned. It is kind of like the arguments for the age of the universe. That may have all been well and good in a pre Einstein world, but post that, and with what we know about the nature of time itself, it becomes silly. When I'm asked how old I think the universe is, I now respond with, "Tell me first where I am in that universe, and how fast I'm going."

 

The bigger issue in all this, to my mind, is what the implications of a materialist worldview are in terms of meaning for existence itself. Very few of you materialists are willing to go there, because you cannot live there. Some claim to, but don't really.

 

Some in history have, and the results have been more ugly than anything else we've seen in human history. But for a real materialist, even that is meaningless.

[Couchrocket]

Depends on what you call evidence. Apparently what you call evidence assumes a priori only evidence evinced from the use of classic scientific methodology?

As opposed to..?

 

As Greg might say in the courtroom, "Non responsive, your honor."