Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 226 of 302 (408497)
07-03-2007 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Vacate
07-03-2007 1:20 AM


Re: the question posed
quote:
vacate
You are too fast on vindicating. Lets not get too hasty here. Further down the page you say:
Genesis breaks down life forms in larger groupings
and then further you say:
Neaderthal would have to be pre-adam.
Now where do you wish to put Neaderthal? Is it a man-kind or an mammal-kind, or a pre-speech prototypes-kind? This last choice sounds much like a beta test done by someone who is not sure of the result!
You stated these larger groupings as veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals and humans. Mammal-kind must obviously include apes. I wonder if Neaderthal gets to be its own kind like a human, or does it fit into other much larger groupings like the ape? (you where not clear, I suppose I should ask for clarity on if there was also an ape-kind)
There is no contradiction here. Genesis classifies life forms in larger groupings than we do today - this is in the texts. The relevent factor is that genesis does not differentiate modern humans by their skeletal forms, as we do today, but it distinguishes humans by their speech attribute. This is correct - all life forms share skeletal formations - only one displays speech.
The issue where a life form such as a neaderthal would fit is a subjective one: according to genesis and my understandinging of it, neanderthal or any other life form, and human derivitive from them, has no impact here. Whether neaderthal constitutes a prototype of modern humans, or of another life form (a certain ape?), does not negate or impact, because genesis, which is minimilist, says only that speech endowed humans emerged as a distinct life form 6000 years ago. Whether neaderthal falls with animal and humans, or mammals and animals - is a separate issue. But genesis is correct in that it is speaking of a life form with speech - it is correct from this point and premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Vacate, posted 07-03-2007 1:20 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 5:28 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 269 by Vacate, posted 07-03-2007 4:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 227 of 302 (408499)
07-03-2007 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 5:05 AM


Re: the question posed
There is no contradiction here. Genesis classifies life forms in larger groupings than we do today - this is in the texts. The relevent factor is that genesis does not differentiate modern humans by their skeletal forms, as we do today, but it distinguishes humans by their speech attribute. This is correct - all life forms share skeletal formations - only one displays speech.
Apart from the snake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 5:05 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 228 of 302 (408500)
07-03-2007 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 4:48 AM


The 37 year age is not something I made up - it is part of writings and commentary made 1000s of years ago.
Which you cannot name nor cite, because they do not exist, because you made them up in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 229 of 302 (408509)
07-03-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 4:48 AM


quote:
Obviously, there is much variances in understanding genesis and the OT here - this document has not been accurately presented via christianity. The 37 year age is not something I made up - it is part of writings and commentary made 1000s of years ago.
Even if this is true, how do we know that the commentary is accurate, rather than the presentations you attack ? As I point out an age of 37 is unlikely according to the story itself, which allows less than 38 years between Isaac's conception and Sarah's death - an event that occurs after the sacrifice.
quote:
The Hebrew calendar is commonly known and acknowledged, and has been in active usage for over 3000 years till today.
The CURRENT Hebrew calendar was adopted less than 2000 years ago (in the middle of the 4th Century AD). Before that the calendar was controlled by astronomical observations (the sighting of the New Moon marking a new month).
quote:
One of the functions thus negated from an anniversary observence is that it is not a true annual recurrence, as with the genesis formular - here, if the sun was at 12 o'clock high noon in a certain area on 1 Jan 2006, then the sun will be in the same position on 1 Jan 2007.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but lunar calendars, like the Jewish calendar, are far worse at this than even the Julian calendar. The Jewish calendar requires the addition of a whole month every few years to stop it drifting too far from the solar year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 4:48 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:30 AM PaulK has replied

rakaz
Junior Member (Idle past 6112 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Netherlands
Joined: 01-24-2006


Message 230 of 302 (408515)
07-03-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
07-02-2007 10:37 PM


Re: Re Evidence
quote:
There is enough evidence to prove micro evolution.
There is not enough evidence to prove macro evolution as it has never been observed or duplicated under laboratory conditions.
I think the distinction between macro en micro evolution is a bit silly. These two are not separate mechanisms that have nothing to do with each other. No, macro evolution is little more that the effect of micro evolution over larger periods of time.
I’m sorry to say, but the idea that you can only prove something by reproducing it under laboratory conditions is a childish notion. Science isn’t about being able to reproduce something. It’s about looking at the evidence and formulating a theory based on the evidence at hand. And every time you discover new evidence you look at it closely and see if your operating theory still works. If it doesn’t you change the theory or even throw it out and start over. In science nothing is proven conclusively and everything is subject to new ideas.
There is more than enough evidence that supports evolution - both micro and macro. The theory of evolution isn’t just a fantasy of a single man. It is the result of careful looking at the evidence and formulating a theory based on the observations. The theory of evolution exists solely because evidence points us in that direction.
Not only do we have direct evidence for macro evolution - fossils of intermediate species, scientist have also been testing and correcting the theory of evolution ever since Darwin made it popular. Remember, Darwin coined his theory of evolution before the discovery of genetics. If evolution was just a figment of Darwin’s imagination, it would surely have been falsified by genetics. It wasn’t. On the contrary, genetics provided the missing information on how evolution works in practice.
Evolution may never be proven conclusively. The same applies to gravity. But that doesn’t prevent you from falling down if you trip. The theory of gravity is a perfect explanation for our current observations. The same applies to evolution; it just fits with the observations we have. If new evidence turns up that falsifies the current theory of evolution, I’m sure that scientist will applaud any alternative theory that fits perfectly with the then current observations. It’s happened before that scientists were wrong and had to change their ideas. It will happen again in the future. That is the nature of science. However, I doubt that future scientists will take Genesis any more serious as today. Of course unless they see a big pointy finger coming out of the sky and new species magically appear out of thin air.
quote:
As far as proving Genesis 1:1 wrong I wish you lots of luck.
To do so you have to prove God does not exist.
Do you have proof Genesis 1:1 is false?
Genesis 1:1 states that God “created the heavens and the earth”. One can assume from this passage that God exists. Disproving Genesis 1:1 is about disprove the existence of God and that he created everything. This is based on false logic. There is no need to disprove the existence of God to disprove the creation myth in Genesis. Nor is there need to disprove that God created life to disprove Genesis.
Think of it like this: If we have a story about Henry Ford producing orange Model Ts and want to prove this story is wrong we only have to prove that he didn’t produce orange Model Ts. In this case not that difficult, because we have a statement from Henry Ford that “any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black”. In any case, we do not have to prove that Henry Ford never existed or prove that he never created Model Ts.
Let’s assume that God did create the heavens and the earth and all life that inhabits earth. We attribute God with omnipotent powers. An omnipotent God could have created life in an immeasurable number of ways and certainly isn’t limited to the way creation is described in Genesis. Disproving the creation account in Genesis has nothing to do with disproving God or creation. Disproving Genesis is about disproving that creation happened in the way it is described in Genesis.
There is no proof that God does not exist. Nor is there proof that God didn’t create everything. However there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the way creation is described in Genesis is nothing more than a myth. It may have theological truths buried in it, but that is different discussion. The Genesis creation myth as an accurate historical account has been falsified by astronomy, geology, biology, genetics and evolution.
I don’t understand the obsession that creationists seem to have with the inability to disprove God. To claim that the likelihood that God exists is the same as that he doesn’t exist simply because we cannot prove either way, is entirely based on faulty logic. Sure, God either exists or he doesn’t, but that does not mean the probability is 50%. We cannot disprove the tooth fairy either, but that does not mean we should seriously consider its existence as fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 07-02-2007 10:37 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:34 AM rakaz has not replied
 Message 236 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2007 9:41 AM rakaz has replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 231 of 302 (408517)
07-03-2007 8:35 AM


A little advice for the Creationist's posting
(in this thread)
Dont debate anything that happened before ...say...the book of Kings.
Debate Kings and later (and that doesnt mean "prophecy" covering events happening today-please dont)
Once you can handle that, then slowly work your way back.
Come to Genesis last.
Why on earth people that may not be able to handle less controversay books (that is to say that I doubt they could handle the task of archaeological documentation) attempt to cover Genesis is simply amazing.
Its like a 5 year old attempting to slam dunk on an NBA court.

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by jar, posted 07-03-2007 9:31 AM Nimrod has not replied
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2007 9:52 AM Nimrod has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 302 (408525)
07-03-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by PaulK
07-03-2007 7:13 AM


quote:
paulk
Even if this is true, how do we know that the commentary is accurate, rather than the presentations you attack ? As I point out an age of 37 is unlikely according to the story itself, which allows less than 38 years between Isaac's conception and Sarah's death - an event that occurs after the sacrifice.
The translation is not lad as in child, but young man (opposiite of maiden). Sarah dies almost simultainiously as the sacrifice was being conducted. The 37 year figure is recorded in 1000s of years' sages commentary: there is no motive to alter this age - I am at a loss to encounter it as an issue.
quote:
The CURRENT Hebrew calendar was adopted less than 2000 years ago (in the middle of the 4th Century AD). Before that the calendar was controlled by astronomical observations (the sighting of the New Moon marking a new month).
This is not correct - the calendar was in use in Canaan when Joshua reigned. The 4CE refers to Pope Gregory, while the OT Calendar was in use throughout the period after Moses completed the five books. The first New Year and Passover were conducted after Israel entered Canaan under Joshua.
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean here, but lunar calendars, like the Jewish calendar, are far worse at this than even the Julian calendar. The Jewish calendar requires the addition of a whole month every few years to stop it drifting too far from the solar year.[/quote]
Its not a lunar calendar but a lunar-solar calendar, the only means to calculate both seasonal (solar for year calc) and months (lunar). I beieve the islamic calendar is lunar based. yes, some years have 13 months, which is correct when measuring a lunar-solar cycle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2007 7:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 12:26 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2007 1:43 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 233 of 302 (408526)
07-03-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Nimrod
07-03-2007 8:35 AM


Re: A little advice for the Creationist's posting
Just a hint.
The Topic is "The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1".
Not Kings.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 8:35 AM Nimrod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:37 AM jar has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 234 of 302 (408528)
07-03-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by rakaz
07-03-2007 8:14 AM


Re: Re Evidence
quote:
rekaz
I think the distinction between macro en micro evolution is a bit silly. These two are not separate mechanisms that have nothing to do with each other. No, macro evolution is little more that the effect of micro evolution over larger periods of time.
I see the fulcrum factor here being whether one sees evolution as a universal constant or not. There is no life on the moon. In fact, there is no such thing as evolution - all universal systems must be intergrated or they do not exist independently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 8:14 AM rakaz has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 235 of 302 (408529)
07-03-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by jar
07-03-2007 9:31 AM


Re: A little advice for the Creationist's posting
quote:
Just a hint.
The Topic is "The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1".
Not Kings.
Hint: only the genesis mode of evolution is vindicated. The premise of darwin's cross-specie is still only a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by jar, posted 07-03-2007 9:31 AM jar has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 236 of 302 (408530)
07-03-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by rakaz
07-03-2007 8:14 AM


Re: Re Evidence
Evolution may never be proven conclusively.
Then you are admitting to believing it by faith.
The theory of gravity is a perfect explanation for our current observations.
Gravity is gravity and has nothing to do with things changing over time.
There is no need to disprove the existence of God to disprove the creation myth in Genesis.
Then prove Genesis 1:1 is a myth.
The Genesis creation myth as an accurate historical account has been falsified by astronomy, geology, biology, genetics and evolution.
I did not say anything about what you or anyone else says about the accounts in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3, or Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:26.
I said Genesis 1:1.
Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning. Science says in the beginning.
Genesis says God did it. Science says singularity did it.
You cannot prove or disprove either.
Or would you like to try?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 8:14 AM rakaz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 1:30 PM ICANT has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 237 of 302 (408531)
07-03-2007 9:42 AM


Science, after all said and done, is but one of the results of a sound premise - a correctly thinking mind. The accuracy of Genesis is not limited to science, but also has to be accurate in its maths and historical stats equally - it does this. Here's an interesting *Big Bang* between a famed contemporary scientist and a Rabbi, which shows the Talibanic dogma which has swept certain sectors of science, and that Darwin's evolution remains a theory with manifold problem areas:
Scientific fundamentalists: Richard Dawkins meets with Rabbi Boteach.
THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 24, 2007
I participated in two debates this week, and between them learned a great deal about the nature of science and religion in our time. The first debate, on the subject of religion, was with Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist and atheist, in Toronto. The second, in New York, was with a leading Jewish-Christian missionary on whether Jesus died for our sins.
What startled me was how, in the religion debate, although my adversary and I challenged each other's most sacredly held beliefs, there was no offense taken on either side. Less so was there any acrimony directed toward me from the approximately 1000 Christians who were in the audience. Religious people are by now so used to having their faith challenged that being on the defensive is no big deal.
Not so science, which has enjoyed hegemony for so long that it has become its own orthodoxy and dare never be questioned, as the following experience demonstrates.
I had already either directly participated in or moderated five previous debates that featured Richard Dawkins, the Oxford Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Through the debates, Dawkins and I had become friends and he even attended Shabbat lunch at my home in Oxford.
But the warmth of our former relationship was not in evidence as we sat waiting to be called to speak at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto. I detected a hardening in Dawkins' position and perhaps an inability to distinguish between religion and religious people, such that his disdain for the former led to his contempt for the latter.
DAWKINS BEGAN by arguing that he did not care whether or not religion had any positive social advantages. The only thing that mattered was whether not it was true. And it was his firm belief that religion was a canard. He was therefore inspired to crusade against it. He proceeded to argue for the logical and mathematical impossibility of God's existence and the truth of evolution.
When it was my turn I began by questioning Dawkins' point on his humanitarian crusade to awaken the world to the lie that is religion. Why, I asked, was religion the only "lie" that seemed to bother Dawkins. After all, he is an Englishman and lives in a country that promotes the "lie" that one human being is born royal while another is born ordinary.
Surely, as part of a modern egalitarian society that rejects the divine right of kings, Dawkins ought to be inveighing as much against the British royal family as he does against vicars, rabbis, and priests! Unless, of course, he has decided that, even though the idea of royalty is a fictitious man-made construct, it was OK to keep it around given that it is a thousand-year-old British tradition and has positive social value.
But religion is more than a useful myth. For me, my faith is true. I believe that God created the world. And yes, I said, I understood that modern science replaced creation with evolution. But the theory still had much explaining to do and many holes to fill.
I mentioned that I had participated in debated evolution with prominent evolutionary theorists, such as the late Prof. John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex at Brighton. In those debates, in the same way that the scientists who participated raised reasonable objections to religion, the other side had raised reasonable objections to evolution.
There are massive inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, which is why it remains just that - a theory. Foremost among these unresolved issues is, first, how evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy increase.
Second, genetic mutation, the very engine of modern neo-Darwinism, is almost always catastrophically destructive to an organism, which severely challenges the notion that mutation with natural selection ultimately leads to higher complexity.
Third, after 140 years of digging up the earth, there still remain enormous holes in the fossil record, the missing links that account for tens of millions of years of evolution, which is why many leading paleontologists, most notably the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, argued for punctuated equilibrium - giant leaps - in evolutionary development, rather than the slow and gradual ascent argued for by scientists like Dawkins.
Indeed, Darwin makes it clear in The Origin of Species that evolution was not developed as a theory to explain the origin of life but as a theory to explain the fossil record. Thus, the theory had to accord with existing fossil finds.
I mentioned that, from my experience, scientists responded to these objections by saying that, given sufficient time, all evolutionary obstacles could be surmounted. Billions and billions of years of accidental evolution could surmount the seemingly impossible mathematical odds that complexity and life could evolve from an amorphous cosmic soup.
Yes, mutations are nearly all harmful and life-threatening. But with infinite time enough of the beneficial variety could still be had. And with more time the missing fossils links will finally be found.
So, I concluded, what separates religion and science is seemingly semantics. What religion calls God science calls time.
For scientists, time had an almost divine quality and could provide for the miraculous materialization of near mathematical impossibility.
WHEN I finished, I received a warm ovation from the audience, that is, until I alighted from the stage. I was immediately set upon by an angry, world-famous physicist who told me that evolution was a fact and could not be questioned. I responded that I was not denying it was so, but rather thought it was the purpose of science to question everything.
A few reporters watched our exchange. One told me that it seemed that he had witnessed a role reversal. He would have expected the religious person to say that faith could not be questioned.
A few hours later, at a cocktail reception, a Harvard professor of physics and I were having a pleasant conversation. She suddenly interjected, "I find it curious that someone as smart as you does not believe in unaided evolution."
I thanked her for her backhanded compliment and told her, "Imagine if I said to you, 'I find it curious that someone as smart as you doesn't believe in God. You would probably think that I was a close-minded, condescending, ideologue."
Albert Einstein once commented on the co-existence of faith and reason by saying, "Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame." But in our time, many scientists who harbor an unreasonable objection to faith are making science into a new religion.
The writer's debates with Richard Dawkins at Oxford are contained in his book, Moses of Oxford. His latest book, named after his television series, is "Shalom in the Home" (Home | Rabbi Shmuley Boteach).

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Jazzns, posted 07-03-2007 11:24 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 12:32 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 238 of 302 (408533)
07-03-2007 9:47 AM


Darwin Evolution - VS - Genesis Evolution.
Darwin posits cross-specie adaptation - Genesis, the most ancient document to refer to these issues, in fact introducing them, also 'proclaims' adaptation, but contradicts head-on where this adaptation is stationed: only via the seed, and only via its own species [A seed will follow its own kind, with the ability to reproduce and carry millinia of data via its genes/Genesis]. IOW, Genesis rules out cross-specie transformations, and instead allocates all adaptation to the 'seed'.
Anyone abreast on this issue will know, there are almost bi-monthly scientific reports plugging holes into Darwin's mode of Adaptation, as well as the methodology of accounting for Darwin's Theory in this fascet. Although Darwin's Theory is accepted by the world at large and the west's education systems. Here, aside from the 'in-lab' reports of percieved imprints dating millions of years - Darwin's cross-specie premise is the most unvindictaed theory ever theorised: no one's seen an actual 'in-transit' cross-species life form - in any specie - when we should see millions. The reasonings given for this lack of physical evidence range from the surreal to equally deflective sources, and we end up back in the millinia of 'wait and see'. Only the most improbable theoretic assumptions, backed by scientifically impossible odds - sustains the cross-specie premise.
One of the ways cross-species has been studied, is how real life-forms behave when faced with diversity - because this gives an indication what imprints are derived from our past DNA sources. Diversity does not look good for the promotion of Adaptation, as per the report below, and subsequently not good for cross-specie transformations. Quite the oppositte. This means that aside from the lack of actual proof for Darwin's cross-specie outside of the millions of years and impossible odds - even the perephial indicators are coming up NEGATIVE. It appears that cross-specie adaptation is less credible than within-species adaptation. Genesis' 'within-specie' adaptation, via the 'seed' - does not suffer these credibility issues. The point: we almost always neglect the sum of Genesis being right - and Darwin wrong or pointing that way according to all new investigations.
The misery of diversity
June 29, 2007
By Ilana Mercer
When an academic discovers what ordinary mortals have known for eons, it's called science. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that diversity is not a strength, but a weakness; the greater the diversity in a community, the greater the distrust. Professor Putnam's five-year study was reported last year by the Financial Times and is finally percolating down to others in the media and blogosphere.
In diverse communities, Putnam observed, people "hunker down": They withdraw, have fewer "friends and confidants," distrust their neighbors regardless of the color of their skin, expect the worst from local leaders, volunteer and carpool less, give less to charity, and "agitate for social reform more," with little hope of success. They also huddle in front of the television. Activism alternates with escapism, unhappiness with ennui.
Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history." Since this is all very perplexing to the "progressive" Putnam, who hangs out at Harvard, allow me to save the good professor from another future shock. People are doing more than hunkering down in these unhappy habitations; they are fleeing. In 1995, the New York Times mocked the findings of William H. Frey and Jonathan Tilove, authors of "Immigrants in, Native Whites Out." These demographers noted that as states stretching from California to Texas were swamped by Third World immigrants, the historic population began leaving. At least those who did not reside in $16.5 million mansions, in the exclusive Pacific Heights. At its most elevated, the Times discounted the findings with the aid of the correlation-is-not-causation claim. At its most debased, the newspaper called those who tracked the trend xenophobes.
(Column continues below)
Almost as predictable is the manner in which these straightforward, sad findings are being misconstrued by puzzled pundits or pressure groups accustomed to maligning You Know Who. The Commission for Racial Equality hasn't heard a word Putnam has said. "Separateness is becoming more entrenched in parts of our society," they warn ominously, as they rededicate themselves to "encouraging people from different communities to meet and understand one another." Putnam said nothing about a lack of understanding or roiling conflict. Diversity triggered not racial hostility but "anomie or social isolation," as he puts it.
Writing for City Journal about the sad settings Putnam excavated statistically, John Leo also introduces an error: "Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance. . " Putnam said nothing about intolerance. If anything, he makes it abundantly clear that he found no evidence of "bad race relations, or ethnically defined group hostility." Rather, diversity generates withdrawal and isolation. The thousands surveyed were not intolerant, bigoted, or even hostile; they were merely miserable. This is mass depression, the kind that stems from loss, resignation and hopelessness.
So too does Tammy Bruce mangle Putnam. Formulaically, she fingers multiculturalism and a failure to assimilate. Again, this is not what Putnam has unraveled. He says nothing about whether newcomers in the 41 localities studied across the U.S. fly Old Glory, recite the Pledge of Allegiance or are proficient in English (an impossibility if the non-English speaker immigrated in adulthood) - or whether these matter at all. He merely examined the impact on trust and sociability of racial and ethnic diversity, only to find that it messes equally with men, women, conservatives, liberals, rich and poor alike. (He does concede that "the impact of diversity is definitely greater among whites," but, predictably, fails to dignify the finding.) There is nothing in Putnam's research to implicate assimilation or lack thereof.
Like all social scientists living in symbiosis with statists, Putnam doesn't confine himself to observations; he offers recommendations. Having aligned himself with central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the factual gloom-and-doom with a stern pep talk. Take the lumps of diversity without complaining! Mass immigration and diversity are, overall, good for the collective. (Didn't he just spend five years demonstrating the opposite?)
To sum, a scientist-cum-policy wonk "uncovers" patterns of co-existence among human beings that are as old as the hills. Greater diversity equals more misery. Does he respect these age-old peaceful preferences? No. Instead, with all the sympathy of a social planner, he reaffirms the glories of forced integration, and recommends dismantling old identities and constructing new, "shared" ones. (Or else!)
Putnam also pelts us with utilitarian platitudes. Evidently, the ethnic engineering historic populations have suffered at the hands of soviet-style planners dwarfs compared to the long-term benefits of mass, Third World immigration. The many thousands of miserable individuals Putnam interviewed must soldier on, their pursuit of happiness sacrificed for the collective gains of cheap Tyson chicken and colorful cuisine.

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 12:49 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 263 by Admin, posted 07-03-2007 3:24 PM IamJoseph has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 239 of 302 (408534)
07-03-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Nimrod
07-03-2007 8:35 AM


Re: A little advice for the Creationist's posting
Dont debate anything that happened before ...say...the book of Kings.
Hi Nim, Have read many of your posts, am delighted.
But here I am stuck on Genesis 1:1
It makes a statement, that is either true or false.
I choose to believe it to be true.
I debated the 2 accounts of creation in another thread for over 300 posts most of these guys did not post there.
The ever loving jar and Ringo did and I appreciate that.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 8:35 AM Nimrod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:58 AM ICANT has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 240 of 302 (408536)
07-03-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by ICANT
07-03-2007 9:52 AM


Re: A little advice for the Creationist's posting
pquoteicant
I debated the 2 accounts of creation in another thread for over 300 posts most of these guys did not post there.[/quote]
LOL - my sympathies. Its amazing how distorted the impression of the OT is. They even forget proper grammar in concluding two creation stories!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2007 9:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2007 2:17 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024