Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
140 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (4 members, 136 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,500 Year: 7,248/23,288 Month: 1,154/1,214 Week: 166/303 Day: 6/36 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3020 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 31 of 336 (619407)
06-09-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 2:53 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Acalepha writes:

I use the term racist in a more general way. I use it to describe the prejudice against someone who belongs to a different ethnic group than your own. Accepting or denying the values of an ethnic group denotes racism for me as it implies the acceptance or rejection of that ethnic group.

You keep using the words "race" and "ethnic" to describe adherents to certain religions. I do not think that those words mean what you think they mean.

As has been pointed out, "race" is an inexact, rather meaningless term that has been used to describe individuals with certain ancestries and certain superficial physical features. People still use the terms "white" or "negro" or "Caucasian" as if they referred to something real, and often apply those classifications to different social groups. However, genetics doesn't support this.

"Ethnic" doesn't apply when discussing religion either. The term's meaning can overlap somewhat and is less arbitrary than "race," but they are not the same thing. "Ethnic" can more legitimately be used to describe people with a common culture, language and ancestry.

Religious labels transcend these categories, though again, there can be some overlap. You can have both Pacific Rim and Middle Eastern Christians, African and Indonesian Muslims, or Ethiopian and South German Jews.

I believe the term you want is "prejudice" or perhaps "favoritism."

Sorry to nitpick, but it can never hurt an argument to strive for precision.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:53 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:47 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 336 (619420)
06-09-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
DBlevins writes:

It appears to me to be a positive statement that racial classifications do exist.

The classifications do exist. Just because they are arbitrary and have little scientific meaning does not mean that the classifications are non existent. Current racial classifications fall roughly along the lines of descent from the now discredited racial classes I mentioned above.

People in the US self-identify themselves as belonging to one race or another regardless of the advantages or disadvantages of doing so, and that the rest of us respect those self-identifications as long as they pass the laugh test.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 5:04 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 6:32 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Taz
Member (Idle past 1801 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 33 of 336 (619424)
06-09-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 2:12 PM


Re: Hi Panda
Oh, please, get off your high horse already. Science has been proven false over and over. For example, the so-called laws of gravity are completely and utterly wrong. According to them, smaller objects orbit bigger objects. And yet we don't see rocks orbitting mountains.

Not only that, science flip-flop its position on every matter every few years. Only the Holy Bible, the true Word of God, remains constant and stays true for all of eternity.

So, worship your false idols all you want. You'll burn in hell for all of eternity, Amen.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Footnote: This message got a 2 hr suspension.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:12 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:50 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 8:04 PM Taz has responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 34 of 336 (619429)
06-09-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
The classifications do exist. Just because they are arbitrary and have little scientific meaning does not mean that the classifications are non existent. Current racial classifications fall roughly along the lines of descent from the now discredited racial classes I mentioned above.

I did not say they do not exist as a social construct. I said they have no scientific value. It appeared to me that you were supporting the view that "race" exists, when it most assuredly does not. Race, as a classification, has no value. In any case, I felt your stating that 'racial classifications exist' did not help your argument.

But let me be more clear so that you understand why I called you out. When Acelalpha writes:

Acelalpha writes:

I don't believe that "racial" groups exist.

I understand him to mean that he doesn't believe in the concept of "race" as it pertains to humans.

When you wrote:

NoNukes writes:

I can assure you that people who are predominately of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid origin do exist. I'm not sure what the point of denying that would be.

It appeared to me to be a refutation of Acela's belief that the concept of 'race' is not valid. You assure us that "race" does exist. While you now seem to agree that, for example, Caucasoid is a faulty racial classification, it wasn't clear with your prior statement what value you ascribed to racial classifications.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 6:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2011 12:29 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 35 of 336 (619443)
06-09-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 3:16 PM


Actually, you are wrong.
The four distinct ethnic groups of old have disappeared long ago. This is mainly because of transportation and the mixing of the various genetic pools of the four groups.

I may look black, for instance, but I have ancestors from France, Africa, Ireland, India, China and Indonesia. (and those are the one that I know about!!)

People, like you, who think that the various "racial" groups exist don't know a thing about genetics. I, on the other hand, teach genetics and know better.

I appreciate your response. I do agree with you on one point, however. I completely disagree with the use of nuclear power for energy and weapons production.

kind regards,

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 3:16 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:04 PM Acalepha has responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 36 of 336 (619445)
06-09-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 3:26 PM


Re: Dear Catholic Scientist
oh. I am new here. I assume that he was. Thank you for telling me that.

Let us say that I use a "ID" as a explanation for creationism. Am I not substituting a make believe myth for a whole bunch of ethnic one? What ever way you look at it, you are dismissing the cultural beliefs of all the different ethnic groups that espouse them.

That is wrong.

I don't have the right to tell any religious person what to believe as far as their creation mythos is concerned.

And neither do you.

kind regards,

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2011 12:27 PM Acalepha has responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 37 of 336 (619446)
06-09-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 3:45 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
I think that classifying people according to their "racial" group allows for stereotyping, labelling and control of that group.

great point. I can tell we are going to be friends.

kind regards

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 3:45 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 38 of 336 (619447)
06-09-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by fearandloathing
06-09-2011 4:25 PM


nope, he's right
gene's are like eggs.

They've been scrambled and there is no turning back.

kind regards,

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by fearandloathing, posted 06-09-2011 4:25 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 39 of 336 (619448)
06-09-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 4:27 PM


The nature of science
If you can't cook it, chew on it, of throw it against the wall. It ain't science.

Nice bible stories are just that.

I'll read them to my kids before their bedtime. That's about it. It is certainly not empirical science.

kind regards,

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 40 of 336 (619449)
06-09-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ZenMonkey
06-09-2011 5:24 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Ok let us use the term prejudice to describe the behaviour of creationist thinkers who would dismiss the creationist beliefs of non-Christians.

Either way. These religious people are completely wrong in their subjugating of a different cultures beliefs.

kind regards,

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-09-2011 5:24 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 41 of 336 (619450)
06-09-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
06-09-2011 6:22 PM


Re: Hi Panda
hey are you not going to try to answer my questions Taz?

Come on. You can do it.

Show me what you got, buddy!

kind regards,

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 6:22 PM Taz has not yet responded

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 42 of 336 (619454)
06-09-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
06-09-2011 6:22 PM


Re: Hi Panda
you said;
quote:
Oh, please, get off your high horse already. Science has been proven false over and over. For example, the so-called laws of gravity are completely and utterly wrong. According to them, smaller objects orbit bigger objects. And yet we don't see rocks orbitting mountains.

Actually every atom in the universe is attracted to every other atom. The force of this atom depends only on the distance between the two atoms. The more atoms there are in one place, the greater this force is going to be. That is why the planets orbit the sun, because there are a whole lot of atoms that make up the mass of the sun. There simply are not enough atoms in a mountain to attract a rock. There are, however, enough atoms in the earth to attract rocks and other things towards it. (This is the force that we call gravity)

quote:
Not only that, science flip-flop its position on every matter every few years. Only the Holy Bible, the true Word of God, remains constant and stays true for all of eternity.

Are you for real? No one can be this stupid. You're kidding right!

quote:
So, worship your false idols all you want. You'll burn in hell for all of eternity, Amen.

Whoa! Are you really a Christian? Are we not brothers in Christ? and you're telling me that I am going to burn in hell for all of eternity. You don't sound like a Christian.

Matt 7.1 Judge not lest you be judged!

kind regards,

Acalepha

P.S. I belong to the Carmelite order. This is the oldest Roman Catholic order of monks on Earth. Careful when you discuss theology with me.

Edited by Acalepha, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 06-09-2011 6:22 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:06 PM Acalepha has responded
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 06-10-2011 1:05 AM Acalepha has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 336 (619467)
06-09-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Actually, you are wrong.
Acalepha writes:


The four distinct ethnic groups of old have disappeared long ago. This is mainly because of transportation and the mixing of the various genetic pools of the four groups.

Race certainly has very little to do with nationality. I'm not sure why you even bring up where your ancestors come from.

I don't care what your genes look like or even what you look like. I agree that racial groupings have only very little to do with genetics. The fact that the groupings are not scientifically defined is pretty much meaningless too. Race is a poorly defined classification that we might be better off without, but it still matters at least in this country (USA).

I do agree with you on one point, however. I completely disagree with the use of nuclear power for energy and weapons production.

My handle refers to nuclear weapons only. I've got no problem with safe, peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Also, I wouldn't spend to much more time arguing with Taz. His post was meant to be a parody. Apparently he's been suspended for fooling around once too often.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:27 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 10:13 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 336 (619468)
06-09-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 8:04 PM


Re: Hi Panda
Acalepha writes:


The force of this atom depends only on the distance between the two atoms. The more atoms there are in one place, the greater this force is going to be.

This is not right. Gravity depends on mass, and not all atoms have the same mass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 8:04 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 10:24 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Acalepha
Junior Member (Idle past 3183 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 06-08-2011


Message 45 of 336 (619469)
06-09-2011 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 10:04 PM


yeah we spend too much money on nuclear weapons
I live in Saskatchewan Canada. Uranium mining is huge here as we have 30% of the world's uranium reserves. The reason that I am so against uranium mining is that it is not cost effective. The last Canadian reactor cost 14. 4 billion dollars. Nuclear reactors are also not safe(ie.Chernobyll, Fukushima, et al) It makes greater sense to develop better ways of harvesting solar energy or tidal energy. Enough solar energy hits the Earth each day to power every city on the planet for 27 years. The is enough tidal energy in the bay of Fundy to produce the same amount of energy as 7 full size nuclear reactors. 180 square kilometers of solar panels in the mohave desert would produce all the electricity demands for the United States for the whole year.

you get the picture, right?

kind regards,

Acalepha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020