Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 31 of 409 (678586)
11-09-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
11-08-2012 11:02 PM


Re: One Day
jar writes:
What is wrong with socialism, after all Jesus would have been a communist, even beyond socialist.
In case FEY decides to dispute this, here is the account of Ananais and Sapphirra from the Bible:
Acts 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Then Peter said, Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.
When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?
Yes, she said, that is the price.
Peter said to her, How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
The penalties for selfishness and greed were evidently greater in the early church. I bet they were tithing 100% for decades after this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 11-08-2012 11:02 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 7:09 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 32 of 409 (678587)
11-09-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by foreveryoung
11-09-2012 1:10 AM


Re: One Day
foreveryoung writes:
The key word is VOLUNTARY. I was talking about forced communal farming. What fearmongering are you talking about. I was only speaking to reality.
Except you're not speaking to reality, you're speaking to your fantasies. No one has mentioned forced communal farming except you. The idea of forced communal farming occurred to no one but you. Now that you've mentioned it, I'm sure everyone here thinks it a bad idea.
If you're really so determined to think up bad things to say about people you disagree with, you're going to need to put more thought into it and not be so ridiculous.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by foreveryoung, posted 11-09-2012 1:10 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 33 of 409 (678588)
11-09-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
11-09-2012 1:25 AM


Re: One Day
Theodoric:
So who is advocating collectivization?
You really need to stay away from Glenn Beck.
The Unions are collectivism, albeit Syndicalism, aren't they?
The Progressives advance the Unions.
This is Marxism which is actually a economic system for the distribution of goods and services which levies a special "Tax" on all consumers by raising the prices.
The price increases for the goods or services produced is used to pay "profits" to both the traditional corporate leadership and then the Union leaders, and of course, benefits to the individual membership.
Each member of a unionized corporation gains benefits at the expense of charging the general public more for its end product of services or goods.
Those people who initiate the Progressive drive to Unionize based upon criticism of gouging in the form of making a Profit fail to see that they double those "profits" by raising the prices and re-distributing "profit" among the fat labor Leaders and hard working membership.
This is De facto, a Tax on the larger society, re-distributed to workers in key economic positions, and add-on in the price of the goods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 11-09-2012 1:25 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 11-09-2012 9:37 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 34 of 409 (678589)
11-09-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
11-08-2012 9:05 PM


It's a BBC Reality Show
Bolder-dash writes:
Here's what they did, they took a group of the most extreme kind of believers, people who believe in Noah's ark, or only in the extreme literalism of the bible, and the BBC decided that if they could win the argument over Noah's ark, then see, haven't we done a great job of dismissing creationism.
Conspiracy Road Trip is a reality show by BBC 3. There have been three episodes so far: Bombings, Creationism, UFOs. The approach seems to be fairly consistent, bring the conspiracy believers in contact with recognized experts.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-08-2012 9:05 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 409 (678593)
11-09-2012 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by foreveryoung
11-09-2012 1:10 AM


Re: One Day
foreveryoung writes:
The key word is VOLUNTARY. I was talking about forced communal farming. What fearmongering are you talking about. I was only speaking to reality.
And I imagine you can provide the evidence that forced communal farming happens in the US?
You keep using that word "reality" yet I have to wonder if you know what it means?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by foreveryoung, posted 11-09-2012 1:10 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 36 of 409 (678595)
11-09-2012 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate
11-08-2012 8:44 PM


Hope for Humanity
DevilsAdvocate writes:
The one thing about the internet though is that it also provides a larger platform and megaphone for the quacks to spread their nonsense. It works both ways unfortunately. The question is whose voice will be more influental and which worldview will people more readily be attracted to and adopt.
Yes, I agree.
But I'm still hopefull.
Have you heard of the "really big deal" that's going through schools and such right now?
Smoking is still there... but it's not the really big deal.
Drugs are still there... but it's not the really big deal.
Fighting is still there (now with police involvement)... but it's not the really big deal.
Sex is still there... bit it's not the really big deal.
What's the really big deal? Bullying.
Fucking bullying!
I'm 34 years old.
I'm willing to bet that anyone older than me remembers bullying in school as "something you just have to accept and learn to deal with on your own" ...if you were lucky.
Today, it's one of the most controversial, serious tasks all teachers and students deal with.
Really? The public school system is actually dealing with bullying?
I don't mean that to sound as if I'm belittling the implications of bullying... I fully agree that it's serious business.
What I mean is... the idea that the government controlled, public dominated school system can understand that this is a big issue and that they have to deal with it is... awe-inspiring.
The fact that such a "stupid system" has the wherewithal and intelligence to identify an issue like this and develop procedures to deal with it... all within 20-25 years... fills me with an immense amount of hope for the human race as a whole.
I think a lot of it has to do with the internet.
Kid shoots up schoolhouse? 50 years ago you'd be lucky if the next county over knew anything about it.
Now everyone knows about it even if it happens in Africa.
It's a big deal, and a slow-moving, idiot filled, government-run system such as "the public school board" has been able to identify the issue and create ways to deal with it. Simply because they can no longer ignore it thanks to the internet and our other social connections.
Right now, every new kid going to school in North America is being indoctrinated with the idea that bullying is bad. They hear it at home, they hear it at school, they hear it in the news... everywhere they go. Is everyone going to change their ways? Of course not. Is the majority of the population going to respect their fellow man a bit more? Absolutely.
This isn't the only thing, just one of the large ones I've noticed.
There is a generation of kids growing up that are more accepting and understanding that any other group of humans ever before. And not just by a little bit.
Will they get run over by other evil people? Maybe.
Will they be able to use these new tools to identify "evil people" better than others in order to prevent getting "run over"? I think so.
The implications of such a group of humans running the planet one day... I hope I get to see it.
Sorry, turned into quite a rant there. Didn't mean for that to be personally focused on you or anything. Just felt like saying some stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-08-2012 8:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 37 of 409 (678598)
11-09-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
11-08-2012 6:38 PM


Re: One Day
Who has the larger audience, Fox News or PBS?
Don't care, doesn't matter.
Take a general sample of kids under 20 years old from US/Canada/Europe (and likely other areas as well...).
I'm willing to bet that they are the most unbiased, non-racist, non-discriminatory group of people you've ever meet.
All unbiased and all non-discriminatory? I doubt it very much...
But significantly better than any other general sample of people? I'd bet a month's salary on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 11-08-2012 6:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 11-09-2012 9:28 AM Stile has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 409 (678599)
11-09-2012 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Stile
11-09-2012 9:17 AM


Re: One Day
But you said "In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." "
Now you say "Take a general sample of kids under 20 years old from US/Canada/Europe (and likely other areas as well...).
I'm willing to bet that they are the most unbiased, non-racist, non-discriminatory group of people you've ever meet."
What does that have to do with evidence driven decision making?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 9:17 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 9:45 AM jar has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 39 of 409 (678601)
11-09-2012 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kofh2u
11-09-2012 8:39 AM


Re: One Day
The Unions are collectivism, albeit Syndicalism, aren't they?
Mmm, no.
You really need to understand what words mean if you want to use them.
This is Marxism
Again, learn what words mean. This is not true
Adam Smith, the ideological father of capitalism, understood there was a huge advantage for employers and the need for some sort of ability by the workers to organize.
quote:
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
The price increases for the goods or services produced is used to pay "profits" to both the traditional corporate leadership and then the Union leaders
Any idea how a Union works?
This is De facto, a Tax on the larger society, re-distributed to workers in key economic positions, and add-on in the price of the goods
Not a tax in any sense of the word. If this were true. ANything the owner makes is a "a Tax on the larger society,..and add-on in the price of the goods."
You really need a class on basic economics. If wages are suppressed and there is no collective bargaining then wealth will be concentrated in the hands of the few. Then no one can buy the products or services.
We call that a death spiral.
Please, please, back your assertions with some facts or at least support by someone moderately reputable.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 8:39 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 5:32 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 40 of 409 (678603)
11-09-2012 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
11-09-2012 9:28 AM


Re: One Day
jar writes:
But you said "In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." "
Now you say "Take a general sample of kids under 20 years old from US/Canada/Europe (and likely other areas as well...).
I'm willing to bet that they are the most unbiased, non-racist, non-discriminatory group of people you've ever meet."
What does that have to do with evidence driven decision making?
People are eventually exposed to evidence-driven decision making at some point in their lives.
Let's say we have a 40 year old man who has some very deep-rooted "non-evidence-driven" ideas that go against reality.
When he is confronted with the evidence of reality, it will be a very personal shock. One that he will likely not be able to get over. Therefore, he ignores the evidence and builds a wall up against "evidence-driven-decision-making" since his experience with it is very negative.
Now let's say we have young kids who have been indoctrinated ("non-evidence-driven") with ideas that do agree with reality.
When they are confronted with the evidence of reality, it will be a glee-ful "Hey! I'm right!" experience. One that they will enjoy. Therefore, they create an environment that begins to thrive on "evidence-driven-decision-making" and they begin to understand the joy/ease-of-mind/honesty/firm ground that comes with letting evidence ("reality") lead the decision making process.
The more things kids are indoctrinated with that actually are facts about reality...
The more chances kids have to confirm those indoctrinations on their own... (the internet)
The higher the probability they will choose to accept "evidence-driven-decision-making" as "the way to do things right" when they reach the development level of starting to sort things out on their own.
Discrimination isn't wrong because "we think people should be equal."
Discrimination is wrong because "there's no factual evidence that shows that different people are unequal." (Generally speaking, on the whole...)
Being taught that descrimination is bad will one day be confirmed (probably sooner rather than later because of the internet)... the more positive confirmations they have with facts of reality will lead to forming their own decision-making abilities around facts of reality.
...or so my faithfully optimistic theory goes
...Plus, my reply to you came after my other reply where I just finished talking about discrimination and bullying... I think they do all tie together with evidence-driven decision making. But maybe not as nicely as I want it to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 11-09-2012 9:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 11-09-2012 10:06 AM Stile has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 41 of 409 (678606)
11-09-2012 10:04 AM


One of the girls fully explained the problem:
"With the faith that I have, if I accept all of this, then everything else is a pile of crap, and I don't accept that."
It's a belief lockdown.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 7:14 AM Tangle has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 42 of 409 (678607)
11-09-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Stile
11-09-2012 9:45 AM


On discrimination
But discrimination is essential, important and not taught enough.
Discrimination is the only way to sift through the volume of data presented in our increasingly connected world to make decisions based on evidence or morality or ethics or ...
The issue is "How do we teach how to profitably discriminate?"
We need to be encouraging discrimination yet what we see all too often (maybe far more here in the US) is just the opposite, we find avoidance and exclusivity and emotional acceptance of data that is filtered not by evidence but rather by popularity.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 9:45 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 10:28 AM jar has replied
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 7:17 AM jar has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 43 of 409 (678608)
11-09-2012 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
11-09-2012 10:06 AM


Re: On discrimination
jar writes:
But discrimination is essential, important and not taught enough.
I don't disagree with anything you've said about discrimination in the context of sorting through facts for relevant data.
But this wasn't the kind of discrimination I was talking about. I meant discrimination in the racial context of it's negative tone as prevelant in much of society still today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 11-09-2012 10:06 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 11-09-2012 10:47 AM Stile has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 44 of 409 (678609)
11-09-2012 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Bolder-dash
11-08-2012 10:56 PM


Re: scientifically educated intelligent design proponents???
The question is no really whether or not you are a member of the moose lodge, the better question is really why you are so afraid to be viewed more critically.
What you folks offer is not meaningful criticism, but ancient religious myth wrapped in semi-scientific terms.
Why do you censor Wikipedia, why do you out professors who don't tow your line, why do you refuse to allow schools to discuss the missing evidence in your theory
We do the same to flat earthers and other cranks. What do you want us to do all these cranks, kiss them?
why does Percy systematically think of ways to convince fence sitters
Ask Percy.
why are Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins, and PZ Meyers so afraid of debate
Scientific debate takes place in peer-reviewed journals. Who are creationists so afraid to present their ideas there? (Right, because they aren't scientific.) What evolutionists have learned is not to engage in the phoney public debates with the Gish gallop preachers. Those folks aren't scientists or researchers, they are showmen playing to a stacked audience. Whenever their points are examined and refuted, do they abandon them? No, they didn't reach those points through evidence so they can't be dissuaded from them by evidence. That's the exact opposite of science--but that doesn't bother them as they have no interest in doing science.
why does your side seem so afraid, that they spend so much time creating so obviously uncritical fluff pieces like this BBC fakeumentary?
Why worry about that? If you have evidence for your side, simply present it and line up for your Nobel Prizes. You'll get all the documentary makers beating their way to your door.
If one is a world's leading professor of astronomy, one can't have believes in intelligent design and still keep their university job?
For pretty much the same reason leading brain surgeons don't bring rattles to the operating room and dance around their patients. They know the difference between ancient superstition and modern practices.
These are the people doing the peer reviews? Whoop dee doo! Join the club, lodge brother. Don't forget your secret handshake.
Been in the club for years, even taught evolution once, filling in for a professor on sabbatical. Never learned the handshake though.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-08-2012 10:56 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 409 (678611)
11-09-2012 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Stile
11-09-2012 10:28 AM


Re: On discrimination
I understood that.
But the issue remains; we do not seem to be teaching kids to discriminate and looking at social media (internet, cable TV, Twitter, Pinterest, the apps in App Stores, ...) it seems that the trend is towards emotional and immediacy as driving forces and not discrimination.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 10:28 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 10:57 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024