<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Just An Old Fashioned SNAFU</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/</link>
	<description>"Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:25:29 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Savonarola</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133684</link>
		<dc:creator>Savonarola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133684</guid>
		<description>BLAKE
please learn to comprehend what is written.

SAV
Years ahead of you, Blake.  Scientists don&#039;t label &quot;guesses&quot; as &lt;i&gt;scientific theories&lt;/i&gt;.  That is explained clearly enough for non-dolts to comprehend easily.  Thus there is no &quot;relabeling&quot; (your word) when something is established as fact.  Ergo, you&#039;re wrong.  You&#039;re also an idiot.
When &lt;i&gt;scientists&lt;/i&gt; tell you what &lt;i&gt;scientists&lt;/i&gt; mean, you&#039;d have to be an idiot to think you know better than they do.  QED.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BLAKE<br />
please learn to comprehend what is written.</p>
<p>SAV<br />
Years ahead of you, Blake.  Scientists don&#8217;t label &#8220;guesses&#8221; as <i>scientific theories</i>.  That is explained clearly enough for non-dolts to comprehend easily.  Thus there is no &#8220;relabeling&#8221; (your word) when something is established as fact.  Ergo, you&#8217;re wrong.  You&#8217;re also an idiot.<br />
When <i>scientists</i> tell you what <i>scientists</i> mean, you&#8217;d have to be an idiot to think you know better than they do.  QED.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133672</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133672</guid>
		<description>I did read- please learn to comprehend what is written.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did read- please learn to comprehend what is written.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Savonarola</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133663</link>
		<dc:creator>Savonarola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133663</guid>
		<description>BLAKE
The first just indicates how lazy some scientists are in relabeling their “guesses”, after they become indisputable fact. 

SAV
That&#039;s not what it says at all.  Not even close.  Please learn how to read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BLAKE<br />
The first just indicates how lazy some scientists are in relabeling their “guesses”, after they become indisputable fact. </p>
<p>SAV<br />
That&#8217;s not what it says at all.  Not even close.  Please learn how to read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133631</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133631</guid>
		<description>I read your NAS link, and I refer you to the second part, which you might have passed over, which is relevant to the argument at hand. The first just indicates how lazy some scientists are in relabeling their &quot;guesses&quot;, after they become indisputable fact. I can&#039;t help their inherent laziness- but perhaps they could take a course of concise language?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read your NAS link, and I refer you to the second part, which you might have passed over, which is relevant to the argument at hand. The first just indicates how lazy some scientists are in relabeling their &#8220;guesses&#8221;, after they become indisputable fact. I can&#8217;t help their inherent laziness- but perhaps they could take a course of concise language?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Savonarola</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133625</link>
		<dc:creator>Savonarola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133625</guid>
		<description>SCHATZ
Seriously – you’re out of your league and wasting our time. Seriously!

SAV
I&#039;ve been gone for more than a day, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133498&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I&#039;m still ahead of you&lt;/a&gt;.  Because you apparently missed the memo, I&#039;m a scientist and I teach science.  Because you apparently can&#039;t read, &lt;b&gt;nothing&lt;/b&gt; I&#039;ve said about the scientific method and scientific terminology has been untrue, mistaken, or misleading.  Meanwhile, plenty of what Blake has said about the scientific method and scientific terminology has been wrong.

Educated people might indeed be wasting our time trying to get sixth grade-level facts through Blake&#039;s thick skull, but to argue that I&#039;m out of my league is absurd.

Do you disagree with the statement from the NAS that I linked to?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SCHATZ<br />
Seriously – you’re out of your league and wasting our time. Seriously!</p>
<p>SAV<br />
I&#8217;ve been gone for more than a day, and <a href="http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133498" rel="nofollow">I&#8217;m still ahead of you</a>.  Because you apparently missed the memo, I&#8217;m a scientist and I teach science.  Because you apparently can&#8217;t read, <b>nothing</b> I&#8217;ve said about the scientific method and scientific terminology has been untrue, mistaken, or misleading.  Meanwhile, plenty of what Blake has said about the scientific method and scientific terminology has been wrong.</p>
<p>Educated people might indeed be wasting our time trying to get sixth grade-level facts through Blake&#8217;s thick skull, but to argue that I&#8217;m out of my league is absurd.</p>
<p>Do you disagree with the statement from the NAS that I linked to?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133604</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133604</guid>
		<description>BLK: &quot;I would not take you for someone who has actually read Paine-&quot;&gt;&gt;

DAR
  Well then you don&#039;t actually pay very close attention. Paine was very much a freethinker, just like many of the other founders. At our last meeting (52 in attendance) we spent the first hour honoring him (it was the 200 year anniversary of his death on June 8). From our meeting notice:

&quot;Come celebrate July 4 at the June 27th meeting as we commemorate Thomas Paine. It is important that the life of this courageous man be remembered, and told to our youth and young in spirit, for the optimistic inspiration it gives of what one person can do to change the world for the better. We will also listen to a dynamic presentation from Carl Shapiro entitled “Thomas Paine and the American Revolution” on CD.&quot;

We also sell his books at our Springfest booth.

D.
-----------------
The man who first uttered and printed the name “The United States of America.”

He helped found the first society for the abolition of slavery in America.

He was one of the first to call for the creation of a Union of Nations which would bring some peace and prosperity to the world.

He was the inventor of the first iron (steel) bridge. His pamphlet Common Sense ignited the American Revolution and his booklet “The Rights of Man” helped lead to the liberation of America from the yoke of the British.

etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BLK: &#8220;I would not take you for someone who has actually read Paine-&#8221;&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  Well then you don&#8217;t actually pay very close attention. Paine was very much a freethinker, just like many of the other founders. At our last meeting (52 in attendance) we spent the first hour honoring him (it was the 200 year anniversary of his death on June 8). From our meeting notice:</p>
<p>&#8220;Come celebrate July 4 at the June 27th meeting as we commemorate Thomas Paine. It is important that the life of this courageous man be remembered, and told to our youth and young in spirit, for the optimistic inspiration it gives of what one person can do to change the world for the better. We will also listen to a dynamic presentation from Carl Shapiro entitled “Thomas Paine and the American Revolution” on CD.&#8221;</p>
<p>We also sell his books at our Springfest booth.</p>
<p>D.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
The man who first uttered and printed the name “The United States of America.”</p>
<p>He helped found the first society for the abolition of slavery in America.</p>
<p>He was one of the first to call for the creation of a Union of Nations which would bring some peace and prosperity to the world.</p>
<p>He was the inventor of the first iron (steel) bridge. His pamphlet Common Sense ignited the American Revolution and his booklet “The Rights of Man” helped lead to the liberation of America from the yoke of the British.</p>
<p>etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133549</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133549</guid>
		<description>There are still parts of Darwin&#039;s &quot;theories&quot; that are not proven- whether we are descended from apes, for one contentious example. That we are from the same &quot;family&quot; of animals as apes, etc., is beyond dispute, but if we &quot;turned&quot; into human, wouldn&#039;t there be some others in the natural order of things that are in the middle of the process? There is no proof that we made the jump from apes themselves, just from a more primitive and &quot;ape- like&quot; (according to our arrogance) human being. 
There is one of the weaknesses, if you will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are still parts of Darwin&#8217;s &#8220;theories&#8221; that are not proven- whether we are descended from apes, for one contentious example. That we are from the same &#8220;family&#8221; of animals as apes, etc., is beyond dispute, but if we &#8220;turned&#8221; into human, wouldn&#8217;t there be some others in the natural order of things that are in the middle of the process? There is no proof that we made the jump from apes themselves, just from a more primitive and &#8220;ape- like&#8221; (according to our arrogance) human being.<br />
There is one of the weaknesses, if you will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Schatzee</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133545</link>
		<dc:creator>Schatzee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:46:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133545</guid>
		<description>Actually I am a scientist and if you read below I not only know the difference but would agree that they are often used interchangeably and incorrectly.  However, that does not change the fact that the lay definition according to the dictionary supports what Blake and others have said above.

Seriously - you&#039;re out of your league and wasting our time.  Seriously!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually I am a scientist and if you read below I not only know the difference but would agree that they are often used interchangeably and incorrectly.  However, that does not change the fact that the lay definition according to the dictionary supports what Blake and others have said above.</p>
<p>Seriously &#8211; you&#8217;re out of your league and wasting our time.  Seriously!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133524</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133524</guid>
		<description>BLK: &quot;the earth revolving around the [sun] is fact, not theory- it has been misnamed by scientists,&quot;&gt;&gt;

DAR
  Well I guess that is as close as Blake can get to admitting he is wrong on this. If only those darn scientists knew better than to misname things so Blake could understand them!

Schat: &quot;some theories that we believe are proven (theory of relativity for example) are still not proven to be considered, scientifically, a fact. Same with evolution.&gt;&gt;

DAR
  Dear Schatzee, I am saddened to hear you didn&#039;t get the note about the theory of relativity being proven to be a fact, over and over and over, a hundred times over. Every television set, every computer, relies upon principles based upon Einstein&#039;s scientific theory (oh the irony of you making a fool of yourself, on, a computer!). Every GPS, which relies upon our measuring the speed of light to *17 decimal places,* every satellite, everything we have ever sent into space and communicated with, every nuclear bomb, every atomic clock... well, you get the idea. In 1905 Einstein&#039;s theory was controversial. A few years later, not so much.

Incidentally, quantum theory is also EXTREMELY well established. That happened probably before your parents were born.

Here are a few simple examples that have confirmed Einstein&#039;s theory:

***
1. Planetary orbits will be slightly different from the paths predicted by classical mechanics;

2. A beam of light will curve when passing near a massive body (i.e., light responds to gravity);

3. Mass has intrinsic energy, in the amount of mc²;

4. Time slows down for moving clocks.

5. Massive object have a higher inertia when they&#039;re moving.

DAR
We even used to postulate an unobserved moon to account for a distortion in the orbit of (I think Neptune). Einstein&#039;s relativity explained the problem with no moon, which we now know, never existed (but this didn&#039;t stop astrologers from incorporating it in their calculations. Oops!).

But if you like to keep it simple, best to stay with the heliocentric theory. Most people can understand that the earth going around the sun is a fact. It&#039;s also a theory. In science, there is no contradiction or even tension between the two. Sorry about that.

D.
---------------
&quot;Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world&#039;s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein&#039;s theory of gravitation replaced Newton&#039;s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin&#039;s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.&quot;  
--Stephen J. Gould, 1981</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BLK: &#8220;the earth revolving around the [sun] is fact, not theory- it has been misnamed by scientists,&#8221;&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  Well I guess that is as close as Blake can get to admitting he is wrong on this. If only those darn scientists knew better than to misname things so Blake could understand them!</p>
<p>Schat: &#8220;some theories that we believe are proven (theory of relativity for example) are still not proven to be considered, scientifically, a fact. Same with evolution.&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  Dear Schatzee, I am saddened to hear you didn&#8217;t get the note about the theory of relativity being proven to be a fact, over and over and over, a hundred times over. Every television set, every computer, relies upon principles based upon Einstein&#8217;s scientific theory (oh the irony of you making a fool of yourself, on, a computer!). Every GPS, which relies upon our measuring the speed of light to *17 decimal places,* every satellite, everything we have ever sent into space and communicated with, every nuclear bomb, every atomic clock&#8230; well, you get the idea. In 1905 Einstein&#8217;s theory was controversial. A few years later, not so much.</p>
<p>Incidentally, quantum theory is also EXTREMELY well established. That happened probably before your parents were born.</p>
<p>Here are a few simple examples that have confirmed Einstein&#8217;s theory:</p>
<p>***<br />
1. Planetary orbits will be slightly different from the paths predicted by classical mechanics;</p>
<p>2. A beam of light will curve when passing near a massive body (i.e., light responds to gravity);</p>
<p>3. Mass has intrinsic energy, in the amount of mc²;</p>
<p>4. Time slows down for moving clocks.</p>
<p>5. Massive object have a higher inertia when they&#8217;re moving.</p>
<p>DAR<br />
We even used to postulate an unobserved moon to account for a distortion in the orbit of (I think Neptune). Einstein&#8217;s relativity explained the problem with no moon, which we now know, never existed (but this didn&#8217;t stop astrologers from incorporating it in their calculations. Oops!).</p>
<p>But if you like to keep it simple, best to stay with the heliocentric theory. Most people can understand that the earth going around the sun is a fact. It&#8217;s also a theory. In science, there is no contradiction or even tension between the two. Sorry about that.</p>
<p>D.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
&#8220;Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world&#8217;s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein&#8217;s theory of gravitation replaced Newton&#8217;s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin&#8217;s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.&#8221;<br />
&#8211;Stephen J. Gould, 1981</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/just-an-old-fashioned-snafu/comment-page-1/#comment-133501</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=7079#comment-133501</guid>
		<description>I mean the Earth revolving around the sun. oops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mean the Earth revolving around the sun. oops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

