J A (may I call you 'Jake? It's unnerving talking to someone who is nameless). I thought it was German for Jake! I had no problem with it..Like BJ in Mash... Phil. ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Deema To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:14 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change J A (may I call you 'Jake? It's unnerving talking to someone who is nameless). Sorry I've been so long. So let's get to it. Sounds like a very narrow definition. (Of religion) Well it's like this -- if I say to you "I'm going by car" and you infer "He's driving a truck", or worse "He'll arrive tonight -- aircraft are quite fast" we are not communicating. The whole object of words having definitions is so that individuals may accurately communicate information, ideas etc. If you want to communicate effectively, while different dictionaries may give slightly different definitions, you are none the less well advised to take your dictionary's definition, at least in the first instance, in preference to your own personal view. To do otherwise risks confusing the issue with the result that you go uselessly to the airport tonight when you should have simply gone to bed at the usual time and expect me for mid-morning coffee tomorow. I define religion as such: Whatever makes up your thoughts, beliefs and actions is your religion. Well if you continue to do so, you will not understand many of my statements. In my opinion, it is not possible to be irreligious (is that a word?). You may dislike and avoid god and god ideas and god worshiping people and the like, but you still have your own religion. Call it a no higher power religion if you want. Or maybe you could call yourself a "scientist". But what I am really trying to point out to you (as Allen did in his latest to you) is that your level of arguement does not rise to the hallowed level of "scientist" No -- I don't call it any kind of religion. Hallowed? I'd guess respected would be much closer, though I hasten to add, not all people so qualified actually deserve even respect. As in all callings, there are those who have gone off the rails. I don't claim to be a scientist -- with or without the quotes -- to do so would be fraudulent. but rather to the lowley level of blind devotion, Jake, you have an unfortunate tendency to tell me what I'm thinking, what my motives are, what my position is. I choose my words carefully with the object of communicating clearly. If you want to know my position, check what the words I use mean. If you have doubts, ask -- it is not always possible to avoid ambiguity completely. An example -- those in the good old USA have a problem with the proper usage of alternate and alternative. When addressing such people I will take measures to try to avoid this by explanation or alternative wording (Oops! Explain! Alternate -- one of two; alternative -- one among many). I have little doubt there are others of which I am wholly ignorant. which is one of your favorite criticisms to pass around. I'm afraid I don't understand you here. If it's important rephrase and I'll address it. I read it, I could only read the first page. I did spend a number of words warning you of this, unless you wished to part with money. Frankly, it could be fiction, or it could be the re-write of history by those who wish to change it to show their side as the positive and the other as negative, whether true or not. I chose Mendel and Lysenko for several reasons. First, both are well known, there are many, many references you could consult. I am unaware of any current controvesy surrounding the work of either of these two men. The matter is settled. Secondly, the two examples, from several positions, are diametrically opposed yet both illustrate the same point, namely that the truth has a way of making itself known. Thirdly, in the case of Mendel, his work is respected and as far as is possible in this doubting world, uncontested. His work was the subject of an attempt at suppression by -- locally at least -- the Church, but as I remarked above, the truth has a way of making itself known. In the case of Lysenko, his work is thoroughly discredited but in contrast, he was actively supported by another ignorant authoritarian body in the face of all evidence to the contrary. (I may forestall a useless side track here by suggesting that you may need to check the meaning of 'ignorant'). I can't tell anything about it cause I don't know anything about it. I have no construct in which to place it. I know nothing about the people or science involved. Here I'll guess that you are a Believer. You don't know Matthew, Mark, Luke or John or anyone who knew them, or anyone who knew anyone who knew them ... yet you believe. I'll guess again -- you believe because a book exists which you believe explains why you should believe. Contemporary accounts of -- almost -- contemporary events exist concerning the other events. Massively interconnected and verifiable accounts. Do a little light reading -- that way you don't have to trust me. People oppress each other all the time, science would be no exception. Have you noticed the irony in you bringing forth an account of the scientific stiffling of truth? No I don't. I said the Church -- in the immediate instance -- attempted to stifle Mendel. Lysenko was, as is the practice in science, tested and found wanting. He was simply shown to be wrong. Mendel was also tested, but in his case -- he was shown to be correct. If you don't understand this, you don't understand science. Paul D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/846 - Release Date: 12/06/2007 5:10 PM