Come-on line in Biology 20: "Hi! My name's Marc. I'll pith your frog for you."
Worked with all the girls.
"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> At 21:54 11/6/2002 -0600, Gryy wrote:
> >Though your text book told you about biology, you still cut into that
> >frog in class. Why? To prove the statements
Ah, sorry. Gotcha. Well, this is certainly true! What some see as a talent, others
see as a problem, I guess. What do you do when you're confronted with a situation
like this? My reaction, when I was young and precocious, was just to clam up and
become rather reserved, because I never knew how what
At 21:54 11/6/2002 -0600, Gryy wrote:
Though your text book told you about biology, you still cut into that
frog in class. Why? To prove the statements in the book that a frog does
have heart, lungs, etc.
Each time you turn on a light switch, you do it with faith, because you
have previously t
I was trying to make points that not everyone appreciates the talents we
may already have.
Stacy.
At 01:04 AM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote:
That's why I included "opportunities" as part of the list. You have to
make due
with limitations placed on your talents, and "lack of opportunity" is the
That's why I included "opportunities" as part of the list. You have to make due
with limitations placed on your talents, and "lack of opportunity" is the flip side
of opportunity. Why do we have proportionately fewer serious music composers today
than in the 18th and early 19th century, for example
What are we to do if our talents are being hindered?
Stacy.
At 07:58 PM 11/05/2002 -0700, you wrote:
This is true. Each has their own challenges, opportunities, talents, gifts and
assignments in life. This is what I get from what Paul says in I
Corinthians 13.
YOUR challenge and MY challenge a
Yes, we are. We at least must prove them sufficiently to ourselves in
order for us to accept them.
What is one plus one? The majority will say "two." Why? Because we
accept the theorem, based upon evidence that it works for us. Do you and
I believe in the BoM? Yes. Why? Because we have tested it
This is true. Each has their own challenges, opportunities, talents, gifts and
assignments in life. This is what I get from what Paul says in I Corinthians 13.
YOUR challenge and MY challenge are to use those to the best of our advantage. I
learned a very interesting lesson recently. I've been goin
"Scaffolding" is another good term -- thanks. We are given a wide variety of
toolsets with which to learn. To confuse the toolsets with the structures they
build is a mistake, imo. John Widstoe wrote a lot about this issue, and had some
very thought-provoking suggestions as to how to approach appar
Not all of us are required to prove theories.
Stacy.
At 03:55 PM 11/04/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
against
Unfortunately you're singing off-key, as this is not part of the "scholarly
record." It's an introductory text meant for a general audience, and is unlikely
to be quoted by other scholars. If you want to get into the scholarly work, you
look at the recommended reading lists Diamond includes at the
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
> >No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
> >then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
> >against known evidences. That does not yet make it a fact, as futur
At 19:16 11/4/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
Anyone here remember that old cartoon about the swing? There are about half a
dozen ridiculous drawings of a simple swing in ridiculous configurations,
which
go from: what the salesman booked, what the marketeer spec'ed, what the
engineer
built, and so on,
At 20:15 11/4/2002 -0600, Super Gary wrote:
These I believe
are necessary to recognize truth from error, but also to help me in
problem solving (which God obviously does much of).
Yes, now that he has ME to deal with!
Till
//
At 15:57 11/4/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
Exactly! I can see that we are singing from the same hymnal.
Yes, PAGE 302!
Till (don't you just love it when they say page instead of number?)
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please
At 14:53 11/4/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
Sorry. I guess that's one episode I don't remember, although something vaguely
rings a bell. Or something rings a vague bell. Or vaguely rings a somewhat
bell.
Sorry, not an episode, but a film classic, The Holy Grail.
"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> At
After much pondering, Elmer L. Fairbank favored us with:
It seems to me that an honest scholar would just stick to writing things
he can authenticate using the documentary record, or at least the
archaeological record. In the absence of such records the author isn't
just engaging in unfounded
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
against known evidences. That does not yet make it a fact, as future
evidence can always refute a theory.
I look at such ideas as a way to expand possibilities and learning in my
own life. Joseph F Smith said it should all be considered scaffolding
used to help build the actual building of true knowledge. Since we don't
have exact information on how long the creation took for example, we
really don't k
Anyone here remember that old cartoon about the swing? There are about half a
dozen ridiculous drawings of a simple swing in ridiculous configurations, which
go from: what the salesman booked, what the marketeer spec'ed, what the engineer
built, and so on, until the final one was a simple rope with
Marc:
In other words, what engineers do every day as they try to figure out how
the
heck to apply a scientific theory to the real world ;-) [see my sig]
"Argh?!? You built it just like I _told_ you!?!"
Dan R Allen wrote:
> What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
>
> Larry:
In other words, what engineers do every day as they try to figure out how the
heck to apply a scientific theory to the real world ;-) [see my sig]
Dan R Allen wrote:
> What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
>
> Larry:
> Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
>
> There are other meanin
Sorry. I guess that's one episode I don't remember, although something vaguely
rings a bell. Or something rings a vague bell. Or vaguely rings a somewhat bell.
"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> At 11:34 11/4/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
> >?
> >I don't get it.
> >
> >"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> >
> > >
Dan Allen:
Thanks Larry, that's the one I was using.
The "Scientific" is meant to imply that the person making the
SWAG is basing it on some valid data that doesn't extend far
enough to make the SWAG a serious prediction - it's a confidence
level thing.
___
Larry:
Ah yes, the conf
Dan Allen:
Thanks Larry, that's the one I was using.
The "Scientific" is meant to imply that the person making the
SWAG is basing it on some valid data that doesn't extend far
enough to make the SWAG a serious prediction - it's a confidence
level thing.
___
Ah yes, the confidence
What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
Larry:
Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
There are other meanings, as well, but that's the primary
one in most common use.
Dan:
Thanks Larry, that's the one I was using.
The "Scientific" is meant to imply that the person making the SWAG i
At 11:34 11/4/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
?
I don't get it.
"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> At 22:01 11/1/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote (and wrote):
> > So maybe to me I see a "turdus migratoris"
> >[guess why I've always remembered *this* one!!] but my 4-year old
> >granddaughter
> >sees a "robin" and
A general book like Diamond's is not "part of the scholarly record." It's
intended for the general public. For those who want scholarly treatments, he
provides a long list of recommended reading related to each chapter of the book.
"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> At 13:27 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
Then Diamond's book is not for you.
"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> At 23:13 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
> Otherwise, it is just a long essay on "how I look at things."
>
> Till prefers very short essays on how he looks at things.
>
>
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway
Well put. Scientists do not use words the way lay people do, and it can be
confusing if you don't know the "code."
Gary Smith wrote:
> No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
> then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
> against known e
?
I don't get it.
"Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote:
> At 22:01 11/1/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote (and wrote):
> > So maybe to me I see a "turdus migratoris"
> >[guess why I've always remembered *this* one!!] but my 4-year old
> >granddaughter
> >sees a "robin" and her little 2-year old friend sees a "bird
At 14:03 11/3/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
I'm just a black and white kind of guy.
Yes, I noticed that about your hair, last time I saw you, John. 8>))
Till
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.
At 23:13 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
Otherwise, it is just a long essay on "how I look at things."
Till prefers very short essays on how he looks at things.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://w
At 22:01 11/1/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote (and wrote):
So maybe to me I see a "turdus migratoris"
[guess why I've always remembered *this* one!!] but my 4-year old
granddaughter
sees a "robin" and her little 2-year old friend sees a "birdie." And is it the
European robin or the New World robin? Th
At 15:53 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
The oldest secular writings, from ancient Sumer, also speak of a Great Flood.
Yes, but they were obviously primitive unenlightened people, whose
superstitions count for nothing in the light of scientific truth and so
must be brushed away with all the other
At 15:29 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
Was Ammon defending a flock of turkeys when he cut all those guys arms off?
Till thinks that he was defending the sheep FROM flocks of turkeys!
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read
At 13:27 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
It seems to me that an honest scholar would just stick to writing things
he can authenticate using the documentary record, or at least the
archaeological record. In the absence of such records the author isn't
just engaging in unfounded supposition, he is
No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
against known evidences. That does not yet make it a fact, as future
evidence can always refute a theory. Without theories, we would not
advance in science
How about just thinking of things as tools? Science isn't in opposition to
religion except in the hands of ignorant atheists, as far as I'm concerned (and
there are plenty of them, to be sure). It's just a tool, a certain disciplined
way of looking at things, that's all. The confusion arises when o
JWR confessed
>I'm just a black and white kind of guy.
Me too. And, I don't take prisoners.
;-)
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
/
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> Part of the reason I turned away from science to religion is because I
> despaired of learning anything with any certainty when the foremost
> authorities in almost every field disagree with fellow scientists about
> really basic things.
Yes, even the army's cleaned itself up ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Larry Jackson:
> >Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
> >
> >There are other meanings, as well, but that's the primary
> >one in most common use.
>
> Paul Osborne:
> Ha ha ha ah. I didn't think you had in you Larry.
>
>
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 12:42 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> >The 1P don't say. It doesn't appear to be a concern for them. That could
> >be why all
> >the sciences are represented in the curriculum at BYU (in fact, BYU's
> >evolutionary
> >biologists are leading "cladis
He's making a huge assumption: that the reader understands that this is an Isaac
Asimov-level primer to a science, not a deep, technical textbook.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 12:40 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> >That would be appropriate for a technical text, but Diamond's b
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 12:37 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> >I don't believe it is merely a (secular) history book -- I think it's more
> >profound
> >than that. If it's truly a secular history of "God's dealings [with] man
> >since the
> >first man down to the time of
Larry Jackson:
>Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
>
>There are other meanings, as well, but that's the primary
>one in most common use.
Paul Osborne:
Ha ha ha ah. I didn't think you had in you Larry.
___
Well, facts is facts, no? Besides, it's SNAFU that everyone
usually gets wrong:
>Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
>
>There are other meanings, as well, but that's the primary
>one in most common use.
Ha ha ha ah. I didn't think you had in you Larry.
:-)
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum I
What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
There are other meanings, as well, but that's the primary
one in most common use.
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9
At 12:42 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
The 1P don't say. It doesn't appear to be a concern for them. That could
be why all
the sciences are represented in the curriculum at BYU (in fact, BYU's
evolutionary
biologists are leading "cladists," a sub-specialty in the field). Also,
At 12:40 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
That would be appropriate for a technical text, but Diamond's book was
meant as
an introduction for a lay audience. The scope of what he discusses is too
broad
for this kind of approach -- there would simply be too many footnotes.
That's
At 12:37 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
I don't believe it is merely a (secular) history book -- I think it's more
profound
than that. If it's truly a secular history of "God's dealings [with] man
since the
first man down to the time of Moses" why a) does it show signs of having
-Marc-
> Okay, I'll take that. Let me rephrase my question: Jim, care
> to back *any* of this up with any actual facts?
I already wrote, then deleted, a response to this, deciding that Jim can
take care of himself. But I've decided not to let good sense stand in
the way, so I'll ask anyway: Exac
I don't believe it is merely a (secular) history book -- I think it's more profound
than that. If it's truly a secular history of "God's dealings [with] man since the
first man down to the time of Moses" why a) does it show signs of having been
redacted by later editors; and b) why doesn't it tell
That would be appropriate for a technical text, but Diamond's book was meant as
an introduction for a lay audience. The scope of what he discusses is too broad
for this kind of approach -- there would simply be too many footnotes. That's why
authors who find themselves in this situation give recomm
The 1P don't say. It doesn't appear to be a concern for them. That could be why all
the sciences are represented in the curriculum at BYU (in fact, BYU's evolutionary
biologists are leading "cladists," a sub-specialty in the field). Also, I don't
seem to see "all that disagreement" that you talk ab
Actually, Dan asked that question. I'd like to know, too.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 08:19 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> >And hence the humble "SWAG" is born...
>
> What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
>
>
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canad
Okay, I'll take that. Let me rephrase my question: Jim, care to back *any* of
this up with any actual facts?
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 08:08 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> >Jim, care to back *any* of this up with any actual facts, rather than just
> >a rant?
>
> You are misus
At 08:37 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Then perhaps you should follow the counsel of the brethren and learn how:
I quote
again, "Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of
which
has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research".
At 08:37 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> At 01:56 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
>
> >You're asking a question Diamond doesn't attempt to answer, and there's no
> >easy way
> >to answer this.
>
> I don't believe I suggested that Diamond was supposed to answer my
> qu
At 08:37 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> And there isn't even a proper bibliography, just some suggested
"additional reading."
Define "proper bibliography." John, if you don't like the book, don't
finish it.
But spare us your suffering.
A proper bibliography is a list of works
At 08:19 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
And hence the humble "SWAG" is born...
What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zio
At 08:08 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Jim, care to back *any* of this up with any actual facts, rather than just
a rant?
You are misusing the word rant. Jim's post was not bombastic or excited
enough to qualify as rant:
1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2
This issue comes up in apologetics all the time, especially with respect to the
evident lack of horses in the New World between the end of the ice age and the
time of Columbus (the Vikings don't count because it's known they didn't bring
horses with them). And the answer, or more properly, I suppos
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 01:56 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
>
> >You're asking a question Diamond doesn't attempt to answer, and there's no
> >easy way
> >to answer this.
>
> I don't believe I suggested that Diamond was supposed to answer my
> question. I asked my question
Well put, Dan. Science has a methodology which is based upon certain assumptions.
Many scientists make the mistake of assuming that that's all there is. But many
non-scientists likewise make the mistake of pooh-poohing a scientific discovery
out of ignorance of how science works, or because on the
Jim, care to back *any* of this up with any actual facts, rather than just a
rant?
Jim Cobabe wrote:
> John,
>
> Scientists are free to indulge their fancy. Obviously there's little
> historic evidence to substantiate supposedly "prehistoric" events. For
> many science devotees, one basic premi
At 04:42 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Of course they're true. But what do you mean by "true"? Scientists use a
different definition, and this is where the apparent contradictions arise.
Science is forever tentative and can only deal with the physical data it
has at
hand. It's bee
At 04:13 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Dan R Allen wrote:
Something else to consider on the sheep issue John is that we seem to be
the only group that understands that Adam lived here - I think that most
people assume that Eden was somewhere in what is now the mid-east, if they
think about it at all.
Scientists go from the assumption that the Bible isn't secular history, and in
that they are right. Apples and oranges.
Zion wrote:
> John:
> Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
>
> the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
> t
Of course they're true. But what do you mean by "true"? Scientists use a
different definition, and this is where the apparent contradictions arise.
Science is forever tentative and can only deal with the physical data it has at
hand. It's been very useful and I wouldn't want to do without it, but y
At 01:56 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
You're asking a question Diamond doesn't attempt to answer, and there's no
easy way
to answer this.
I don't believe I suggested that Diamond was supposed to answer my
question. I asked my question of the members of this list. If Diamond
John:
It seems to me that an honest scholar would just stick to writing things he
can authenticate using the documentary record, or at least the
archaeological record. In the absence of such records the author isn't
just engaging in unfounded supposition, he is engaged in irresponsible
guessin
At 12:27 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Zion wrote:
The problem with the study of truly ancient languages and cultures is the
lack of real records. A lot of this type of scholarship has to be based on
supposition; personal bias will get in the way. I don't think that there
is really any way around that.
John,
Scientists are free to indulge their fancy. Obviously there's little
historic evidence to substantiate supposedly "prehistoric" events. For
many science devotees, one basic premise is that nothing supernatural
exists. In science to acknowledge the existence or act of God is an
awful
I have.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
> the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
> through it, and I'm getting bogged down.
>
> This guy is a scientist and a historian, but he keeps explaining
John:
Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
through it, and I'm getting bogged down.
This guy is a scientist and a historian, but he keeps explaining how
domesticated plants were devel
>Maybe the scriptures really are just an ancient collection of
>Hebrew folk talks. Is that possible?
Well, I've put all my eggs in one basket in the which the scriptures are
true. However, it seems that symbolism plays a major part in the stories
told of the Bible which could make what we think
Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
through it, and I'm getting bogged down.
This guy is a scientist and a historian, but he keeps explaining how
domesticated plants were developed by
78 matches
Mail list logo
