Jihad needs scientists

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <k4uqj2tih5dpatici8qeesbi8otu4gp5p1@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:11:09 -0500, unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com
wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had
better
be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational
sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the
history
of science.

It is not.


Yes it is. It the cornerstone for biology, in the way atoms are for
chemistry.


The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and
especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant.


OK, lie #1


There
is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution.


Lie #2


Nobody
actually understands how DNA works.


We don't understand quantum theory either, but the sun shines and your
computer works.


Evolution, and especially its
mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day,
but not yet.


You are lying.


If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're
right.

John



Idiot.


Whether or not models are correct is not important to us.
What is important that they provide accurately predictive
tools for us to use.

Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools?
Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are
somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about
macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past
creations at this level "predictable" after the fact?

Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system.

I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under
our eyes.

John

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <7676e$453e0156$4fe763b$982@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Jeez, man, TRIM!

Good example. Here's one I like as well. Nowhere in the US
Constitution is the USG permitted to go into the forest and
timber business. Yet here we are today with some huge national
forests from which the USG sells of timber from time to time.

However, USG is not prohibited from such activity in the
constitution.

You could say Article IV, section 3 allows that: "The Congress shall have the
power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory or other property belonging to the United States..."

 

[MooseFET]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1161533627.985532.89370@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161446216.247073.137760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,

It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an
obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed.
snip

This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to
convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb.

I disagree. The funniest humor is always about the most serious
subject. There is an evolutionary explaination for why this is so, but
even without the explanation, it is obvious from experience that it is
true. God, death and people being unfaithful are the normal grist for
jokes.

I'm not posting here to discuss the benefits and socioeconomic
effects of humor. I do not find satire funny. I think sarcasm
is not funny at all but a method of demeaning the subject.

I disagree with this if it is how you are characterizing what I wrote
that you have objected to. I have used humor to gently point out a
couple of fairly objectionable things you have done in this argument.
Your statement that you wished others would think, was suggesting that
you were the only one thinking. I made what I though was a modestly
funny joke while hopefully pointing out to you that others may be
thinking but not agreeing with you.

That said, I will attempt to resist the urge to use joke in future
posts intended for you.

[...]

IIRC, there isn't any benefits for females to want to go
the extremists' heaven.

This is quite likely true. The extremist version of Islam is very
sexist. Moderate Islam, from what I know of it, actually isn't very
sexist at all.

There is an interesting parallel with a lot of the "christian right".
They are also very sexist.

This latest movement of that
religions is steeped in sexual perversion and thinking.
It's just another weird aspect of that movement. I also think
that this absence is significant but I don't know why..yet.

If you cast your mind back to the days when we clubbed dinner over the
head, I think you will see the roots of the reasons that these
religions tend to run this way.

We are victims the our past and the instincts that served to keep the
human race alive and increase the population. These "base" instincts
still exist and can be taken advantage of by those who wish to lead us:

Males:
If you are male you want to get as many females pregnant as you can.
You may also want to prevent any other males from doing the same but
this would be to a lesser degree. You will provide to these females
just enough support to ensure that your offspring are raised healthy
and can become the dominant males of a new generation. You want to
make sure that the offsping you are raising is truely yours so you want
to mate with virgins.

Females:
If you are female, you want to make sure that the offspring you spend 9
months pregnant with is healthy and will be well supported during its
development. This means that you will choose a mate that is healthy
and has status. If you can't find one with both characteristics, you
will want to carry the offsping of the healthy one and trick the high
status one into raising it. Since you are certain that the offspring
is yours there is a lot less interest in having a virgin as a mate.
There is still some because of STDs but that is less of a pressure.


Now imagine that you are setting up a new "religion". This will have
to survive and spread in an environment composed of the humans we have
defined above.

Now, think about that in combination with the tactics
that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media.

Since the thing I'm supposed to think about in combination with those
tactics makes no sense, I can't figure out what you are suggesting I
think about. That being said, you can't assume that I haven't already
thought about it.

Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy
Western civilization. The compensation for those who die
while doing this work for them is only addressed to males.
The idealism puts all women out of society (cover and
no transport out of the house). This is not getting back
to the old ways of Muslim living (from I've read).

This is pandering to the worst of what it means to be male.
Unfortunately, it also seems to be, in some way, pandering to the worst
of what it means to be female also. "Romance novels" are full of women
being held captive by big strong men and falling in love with their
captors. This must be playing to some instinct. Men don't like
romance novels.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Larkin wrote:

What's strange is how pervasive it is. Hardly any hard science
research can be done without a bunch of electronics instrumentation.
We have almost no other ways to accurately measure and record physical
phenomena. Any physics, chemistry, or even biology lab is usually
dominated with electronic gear, optimistically all calibrated,
connected, and being used properly.

I'm not complaining.

John

You are a poor computer nation! Surely the fastest and sometimes the
Best, but stucked, stucked into climatic calculations and forecastings,
you poker-magicians.


In Religion you are 200Y behind.
In technic you stumble on the restless reminds of the WWII.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

I think of engineering, in general, as the application of science and
math knowledge for practical purposes. Not all science knowledge can
be used, at some particular moment anyway, for such purposes. And it
is definitely true that not all mathematical knowledge can be used for
practical needs.

(Mathematicians sometimes gleefully seek and are actually attracted to
researching some area that they are personally convinced no one will
ever use for practical things -- I particularly remember John Conway's
comments in that regard.)

Hi Jonathan!



Math is, one of 'The Sciences'...


Surely my baddest, but.




Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[John Larkin]

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive.

Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient.

"That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later
that it can work.

It's hard to brainstorm
with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it
down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something
there.

That's only way to design something. We wouldn't have gotten anything
done if we didn't slap each new idean and tear it apart.

But ideas, even bad ideas, can be played with and sometimes that leads
to ideas that are not bad. If you squash the process at step #1, it
ends there.

Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics
than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers...
check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the
RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now.

The physics biz is not a production line activity. It is their
job to fiddle and tweak until it works. Then the mess gets
handed over to engineers; it is their job to figure out how
to manufacture the thingie without having to reproduce the
bandaging steps.



The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological
physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot
of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can
reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry
and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as
brutally competitive.

Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new
most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics
without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc.

grin> You should try working with people who are doing engineering
work with a thinking style trained to do physics.

Now *that* is an interesting concept. Elaborate?


John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:52:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

But the problem turned out to be a lot simpler, almost linear, when we
looked at it from another direction. And when we changed the specs on
the product, it got even simpler.

Kewl. I once did a project where we spent most of our time
bullshitting designing the formats of the data. One of my
bit gods got an inspiration, and we finished the design within
two days. The formats were so good, the code practically wrote
itself.

A month of two bit gods yakking and arguing and getting headaches.
Then, poof, one gets a new idea, we throw out everything, and
do the real design in a couple of hours. Then you get that
feeling of satisfaction that tell you this is the Right one.

Yup, the right solution just clicks into place. Snap!

I keep telling the kids that they're not lazy enough. They get a
problem, conceive a solution, and plow in with enormous energy to
implement it. I look at a problem, consider various solutions, and
keep rejecting the ones that look like too much work, until I come
across some core simplicity that makes it easy. Or I change the rules,
ditto.

The other problem with a complex solution, for example a matrix
solution to a circuit, is that it has an input and an output but the
intermediate steps are not capable of being sanity checked. So when
you get crazy results, you don't know why, and may not even notice
that they're crazy.

The kids may be smarter than me, but I'm sneakier.

John

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkolh$8ss_004@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <yaL_g.16505$vJ2.3095@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfmrv$8qk_009@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <IKudnYawzLIroafYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5rn$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data.

Eh? Why would common sense demand this?

I tried to explain why. Apparently it was written in Martian.


No, it was written with a *complete* lack of understanding of statistics,
especially population sampling statistics.


snip

Getting awful snippy lately, aren't you?

I'm getting tired; I'm behind in my other work and you are
starting to repeat yourself. We haven't even begun to dicuss
the topic. Most of these posts have been about how
twisty little facts, all alike, are used to divert the
discussion.

Yes, that does seem to be how the current administration has justified their
actions.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkt54$8qk_001@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Unless you can produce one, I am forced to assume that you
weren't listening carefully (as is your wont), and substituted your own
imagination of what you *think* he would have said, for what he actually
said.

These are not stupid people; they are merely insane. They are
quite clever using words to hide their meanings. Clinton is
famous for his meaning of the word "is".

Ah, now we see why you refuse to provide evidence--there is none. Would've
been better for your credibility if you would've admitted that the first
time I asked for evidence. Ever consider that *you're* the insane one,
reading meaning into words where none is intended?

Whenever Kennedy is running for reelection he tries to increase
the federal minimum wage. A very common statement he makes
is, "Raising the federal minimum wage will not result in mass layoffs."

I'll rewrite the statement the way he really means it.

Raising the federal minimum wage will not result in Mass. layoffs".

And it won't because our minimum wage is always higher than the
feds. This is how the Democrats, who are now running the
part, work. I never thought I'd miss the old Southern Democrats.

The best approach to figuring out the hidden agendas for these
insane people is to notice what they refuse to talk about.

Yeah, they also refuse to talk about Earth being taken over by little green
men from Mars. I suppose, in your twisted interpretation, that means that
they are all in favor of little green men from Mars taking over the Earth.
How dare they! Vote 'em all out of office, the bastards!

The primary topic that they refuse to say anything other than
an anti-Bush slogan is the threat of all Islamic extremists' attacks.

And don't forget the little green men from Mars. Wouldn't want to have to
label them "soft on little green men from Mars", now would we?

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkv2b$8qk_007@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <3MSdnYZwCOXO8abYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehflan$8qk_003@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <T5idnaxgJN-lqKfYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd3s8$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <74kcj2dtgob35abvm2tucgiuim8r3mot3e@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2006 07:23:46 -0700, the renowned "MooseFET"
kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161093895.152327.297830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

unsettled wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western
civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the
following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

You left "sex" off the list, unless you include that in one of the
three you listed.

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

/BAH

What's the reward for virgins? 1/72 of some hirsute dude? Hmmm...
could have used that line in HS..

You aren't thinking. This portrays to all women that women
don't matter. Their only role is sex slave.

This is not the image Islam portrays to its women.

Perhaps not to moderates. Now think a little bit more
about an interpretation that is trying to become the
one and only sect in the Islamic world.

Perhaps among extremist minorities.

You keep saying this; this is not a minority.

The extremists are a minority. The "ill treatment" of women you purport to
demonstrate is minoritybased.

I can produce
a scenario where the opinion would become 100% of all Muslims.

I can produce nine scenarios where the opinion would become less than 10% of
all Muslims.

Therefore it is _still_ minority.

Now think a bit more about the reality
of Islam and how it is interpreted.

I suggest that you begin listening to what you keep insisting
is a minority movement. It is not.

I do. It is.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehku1t$8qk_005@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <rYydnRCQepdT8abYRVnyhA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfl72$8qk_002@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <1161446216.247073.137760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,

It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an
obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed.
snip

This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to
convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb.

And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed.

Yes, it is needed. I think that's one of the underlying reasons
people cannot comprehend the concept of mess prevention. It
appears that modern females are also not getting trained to
anticipate and prevent messes.

I'm starting to think that this may have something to do
with concentrating on work that pays money rather than
other kinds of work.

Nonsense

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkth3$8qk_002@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <1161448269.254202.18890@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

[... democrats ...]
They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien
attacks

If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why
they may not want the other side to hear of them.

Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty
coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better
inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they
haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen
at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you
wouldn't want a nuke to go off.

What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete
silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important
action that can be taken right now. Only the person known
as President Bush is even uttering those nouns.

Because they're another smokescreen to try to keep people from focusing on
the real issues. As I mentioned several times, and you've refuse to
address, less than 3 % of our national electric power comes from pretroleum.
Since we only import about 2/3 of our petroleum, apportioning imports across
all uses leaves about 2 % of our electric power coming from imported oil.
Since only about half of our oil comes from the traditional Muslim nations
that might cause us trouble (fully 1/3 of our imported oil comes from Canada
and Mexico), that's down to about 1 % of our total electric power grid that
is at risk. You would truly never notice that if it went off-line, as coal-
and natural gas-fired power plants would easily take up that small amount of
slack.

No, nuclear power plants have nothing to do with petroleum dependence on
Muslim nations, as you imply. They do, however, have to do with the future
of electric power in this country, once coal and natural gas run out.
However, between them, the reserve is estimated at well over 400 years, so
it's clearly not a big issue in this election as Bush would have us believe.
Where did you get your talking points, if not from the RNC--certainly not
from any analysis of actual information.

It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit
to open a plant.

Great, I'm all for it personally. However, it has nothing to do with the
quality of elected officials.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehktr9$8qk_004@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

The smoke and mirrors is so thick in this discussion, it is
difficult to identify who is who.

Yes, and it would be nice if you would stop doing that.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehku1t$8qk_005@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed.

Yes, it is needed.

Only if you intend to use the "gender card" in place of facts, inn an
attempt to win an argument...which clearly appears to be your intent.

I think that's one of the underlying reasons
people cannot comprehend the concept of mess prevention. It
appears that modern females are also not getting trained to
anticipate and prevent messes.

OK, so you admit it's not a male-female thing, and yet you still insist on
playing the gender card. Makes your intent pretty clear.

I'm starting to think that this may have something to do
with concentrating on work that pays money rather than
other kinds of work.

You mean other kinds of work like sitting around dreaming up paranoid
conspiracy theories?

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:gldsj29b1c1911oi7v8ii0secbsntuh51o@4ax.com...

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive.

Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient.

"That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later
that it can work.

"Wow, that is great. It looks cool. It sound cool. It has a trendy
presentation and has been posted all over USENET in capital letters. It has
lots of pretty looking documents and some young guy who keeps talking about
how Einstein was ignored early on supporting it. It has the potential to
solve the worlds energy needs. It will allow mankind to colonise Mars. It is
brilliant" - is not very terse and it is even worse when it is discovered
that it will never work (*).

"That can't work" is indeed pretty terse and more often than not, it turns
out it actually can't work.

For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How
should people react to new ideas? Habishi would be a good example...



~~~~~~~~~~~
(*) Poorly worded given the rigours of the scientific method but I don't
mind.

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:TsOdnbyhHbpLY6DYRVnyjQ@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkpst$8qk_002@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <c387f$453a4078$49ecfae$4299@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
snip

Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill.

I don't think so.

You are correct.

I think these types of people are
trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice
about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will
have mercy and not kill them.

You are incorrect. There is no "trying" to survive about it. I can only
speak for myself and I am trying to maintain my freedom and the rights I
have been brought up to think were inalienable.

And for myself, it's a matter of maintaining perspective. If you recall, I
did not come to the conclusions I have from the Democrats. I came to those
conclusions by consideration of the data when I was still reasonably happy
with the Republican party. As I did so, I became more and more dissatisfied
with the Republican stance on things.

Nice try, BAH.

It's similar to a pack
mentality, I think.

This argument cuts both ways.

Yes, but pack mentality generally doesn't work in the direction of
reasonableness. It generally works in the direction of extremism. Which is
more extremist, the insistence on proportion and reason in response to the
threat of terrorism, or the Chicken-Little "Sky is falling!" routine that
the Republicans have been pulling since about 2002?

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkutu$8qk_006@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

I'm not posting here to discuss the benefits and socioeconomic
effects of humor. I do not find satire funny. I think sarcasm
is not funny at all but a method of demeaning the subject.

....and yet you use it all the time, if your postings here are any
indication.

Since the thing I'm supposed to think about in combination with those
tactics makes no sense, I can't figure out what you are suggesting I
think about. That being said, you can't assume that I haven't already
thought about it.

Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy
Western civilization.

Evidence, please. This, once again, is at best an extremist
over-interpretation of what anyone has actually said.

Eric Lucas

 

[Daniel Mandic]

MooseFET wrote:

with their captors. This must be playing to some instinct. Men
don't like romance novels.

Hi MooseFET!



Doktor Zhivago.

Shows good how men can fall, having two women in mind, or loving.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

And hence we have near perpetual war between India and Pakistan.

Graham

Hi Graham!


perpetual... Imminent/queueing in American English.





Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehl0hs$8qk_001@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfm39$8qk_006@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies.

I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs.

You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some one
may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect
because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in the
scientific method.

You believe that the experiments you have carried out are valid tests of the
theory.

Belief is a prevalent concept and the religious extremists should not be
allowed to hijack it for their own use.

This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell?

When you try to make a religious creed out of science, yes. And
they will do everything they can to prevent their kids from getting
exposed to the Devil's words.

Who is trying to make a religious creed out of science? The Religious Right
seem to be trying it as much as anyone else (eg. Dawkins).

If someone reads that
as saying "I believe in evolution THEREFORE I cant believe in the Bible"
that is the fallacy.

It is not a fallacy.

It may happen but it is a fallacy, and a fallacy on behalf of the person
who
has interpreted it as that not the person who spoke. Think a bit more
about
what the words mean and what the interpretation is.

Will you please shut up and think?

Will you please try and think about what you are talking about. Because the
Religious Extremists take offence does _not_ mean it is wrong.

These were science teachers
using religious language to describe a theory.

"Belief" is not religious language, it is language.

This is not science. And the religious right is correct in
reacting to such tripe. Their solution to this problem has
no place in science.

Nonsense.

There are only three things in their list
that are to be believed. Adding evolution to that list is
heresy.

Yet saying (for example) "I believe my wife loves me" or "I believe the US
is doing the right thing in Iraq" or anything along those lines is not
heresy?

When the whole convention is about not teaching evolution in
the science classroom and teaching intelligent design in
all science classrooms, the science teachers have absolutely
no business using the word "believe" in any sentence during
the days of that conference.

Nonsense.

"I believe string theory will be validated."
"I believe the universe was created in an instant at t=0"
"I believe that gravity 1x10^16ly away works the same as 1cm away.

Etc.

Religious zealots can not lay claim to command of language because it's use
may offend them.

The word belief implies faith that passes all understanding.
This means that no evidence is required. No evidence has no
place in the science lab.

Yet the science lab is home to beliefs of all types. What evidence do we
have which properly supports the strong equivalence principle? Science is,
IMHO, more rigourous in that things which are believed are tested for as
much as possible but there is still a time of belief.

<snip rude disingenuousness>

You are under the impression that the word belief can only be used in
reference to God. This is nonsense.