Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
frightening...

http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
>

> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469

B*gg*er! I'm going there in a couple of months.
I'd better keep my mouth shut. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:06:15 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
> 
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-
progresses-006545
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389

It's frightening.  Rationality has gone out of the window for some of our 
more fundamentalist states.

Sadly, that includes Utah, where I currently live.  We're making plans to 
move to Oregon in the next 12-18 months.  We just went on vacation there 
(and really liked the area we're thinking of moving to), and on the drive 
back, I knew we were in Utah when I saw the first anti-evolution 
billboard.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 2:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
>
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389
>
Hmm. Finished "Assassin's Creed" recently, then found a Youtube on the 
symbols and stuff at the end. Buggers that believe in the Illuminati are 
just as crazy as certain Regressives, especially the Faux Teaparty that 
got elected so big last time around, but the explanation of the "end of 
the world" made perfect sense to me for the game. Its not the end of 
existence, its a moment at which we find we have to choose between open 
knowledge, and making choices based on having that, or allowing someone 
else to corral the "lower classes" permanently, using lies, 
misinformation, and propaganda, on a scale never before possible.

The Regressive party has chosen which side they are on, the old style 
Republicans that *thought* they represented their party find they can't 
do anything, and the Democrats have more than there share of the same 
sort, with different dogma, with those that could effect things lacking 
the guts to do anything, willingly allowing themselves to be pushed 
around by misinformation and lies, as long as they can win some small 
concessions in the process.

So.. When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and 
constant bullshit, and all the false morality/ethics/prosperity those 
give, and make choices based on clear, non-made up, no, you don't get to 
have your own evidence, even if you do have a different opinion, facts, 
instead. Or, do we let everything turn into Fox News, World Nut Daily 
(World News Daily), and the various other sorts that do stupid shit like 
lie about what others have said?

In the case of WND, post a claimed "non-photoshopped" image of Obama's 
grand parents without him in it, complete with part of his knee, an 
extra arm, and suspiciously repeating patterns in the background, where 
they failed to use the clone tool properly, then later stated "some" 
meaning only this one case, "articles we publish may not be factual." 
Sort of like Santorim's (not sure if that name is right) 'minor' 
exaggeration of Planned Parenthood's abortion services from 3% of their 
operations to 90%, which was, "not intended to be a factual statement." O.o

Maybe not, but half a million idiots will be repeating it *as* factual 
for the next 50 years, because they, like the Regressive party they vote 
for, have opted for lies and deceit, over actual knowledge. Its so much 
easier to be told what to think, and simply accept it without question, 
then find out the real facts, and decide who is and isn't a credible 
source of information. For some people, this is just too much strain in 
the US. :( And, it doesn't help when half of your parents generation 
say, "Well, they all lie to you, and they are all the same", so it 
hardly matters that now a lie can reach 300 million people in 4 seconds, 
where 20 years ago it would have had to at least put on some running 
shoes, to get half that far in a single day. Man, my father pisses me 
off some times when trying to talk to him about some things... True or 
not, today ***it matters*** who is lying to you more, more often, and 
about what, because its not just 200 idiots at a speech hearing it, its 
100 million people listening to someone talk about the speech, and lie 
about everything in it, over radio, and TV, and blogs, etc, for weeks 
after, most of them unwilling to watch the full speech, check the facts, 
or look for numbers, which are not provided by the same people lying 
about the contents.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and constant
> bullshit,

Never, because there will always be people who will take 'belief' over 
'knowledge' because they've been conditioned to do so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 14:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's frightening.  Rationality has gone out of the window for some of our
> more fundamentalist states.

That's rather tautological.

I thought we'd already dealt with this at the supreme court level?


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:59:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/12/2011 14:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's frightening.  Rationality has gone out of the window for some of
>> our more fundamentalist states.
> 
> That's rather tautological.

Well, yes, sadly, it is.

> I thought we'd already dealt with this at the supreme court level?

Apparently these states don't think Scopes applies any more, and what's 
more, we've got 4 judges on SCOTUS that seem more than happy to disregard 
earlier verdicts, and are rather pleased with themselves that there is no 
appeal - and that they ultimately have the final say.

It's a sick perversion of what SCOTUS was supposed to be, IMHO.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 4:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and constant
>> bullshit,
>
> Never, because there will always be people who will take 'belief' over
> 'knowledge' because they've been conditioned to do so.
>
> Jim
True enough. But, the question is where is the tipping point. Where do 
people stop accepting, as a general whole, obvious lies, simply because 
a lot of people say they believe them? There is some hope, and some 
terror in that regard recently. On one hand, most rational people won't 
trust Fox News to say that the sky is blue, without either checking 
themselves, or having some prior knowledge, which makes the statement 
plausible. On the other, they have *no* problem listening to Oprah, 
Depok Chopra, accepting everything printed in say, Huffpo as true, even 
when its about medical science (which they know about as much about, and 
get right about as often as a medieval alchemist). Most also don't even 
question whether or not some place like CNN has checked their facts, or 
bothered to find someone that **actually** has a damn clue what they are 
talking about, just how many unrelated doctorates they have. Watching 
something from them, sometimes... its literally like pitting a physicist 
against a theologian, while talking about bioscience. A decision that 
makes about as much sense as asking your auto mechanic, and the village 
idiot, discuss effective farming. One probably hasn't a damn clue, and 
can't address, correct, or even get right, key points, and the other is 
there to talk about what their foot fungus told them last week about the 
subject. Neither should have been there, but for people like CNN, its 
*important* to show both sides, even if you pick the two worst possible 
people to address either one of them.

Not to say that, for example, MSNBC is much better. These people 
actually "put" the owner of Huffington Post as someone to discusses 
issues, and actually think Depok has some profound understanding of the 
universe, which he can use to talk about various subjects. But, its 
**still** marginally better, in my opinion, than either bringing two 
complete idiots on, to both spout total gibberish, a la CNN, ABC, etc., 
or just the theologically driven ones, or business driven, etc., who... 
well, lets just say that there is always on person in your family you 
would never talk to about anything important, lend money to, trust to do 
what you asked, or have a conversation about certain subject with, 
because they are a complete, self serving, clueless, nitwit. Fox would 
find that person, and give them their own segment.

Fox's owner isn't an idiot. He gets what a lot of them, including the 
fools that keep trying to "show both sides" without actually saying 
which one is more plausible or not, and calling it "integrity", can't 
seem to grasp. It doesn't matter if you are right, if you tell the truth 
or lie, if you contradict yourself, or you spend all your time playing a 
game of wag the dog. What matter is if your viewers will bother double 
checking any of it, if they really pay attention, if they are willing to 
compare notes, and **how spooked, crazy, paranoid and fearful you keep 
them**, precisely so they will never do any of those things. Its the 
Evangelical Church of media news. "Don't watch any one else, don't trust 
anyone else, don't listen to anyone else, don't question, don't wait and 
think about it, just do what we say, think what we say, hate who we say, 
and keep watching!"

And, 90% of the TV news, and most of the papers, all just present 
"balanced" views, by simply repeating, without comment, what ever insane 
gibberish one side says, and what the other side says about what was 
said, without so much as lifting a finger and saying, "According to our 
own fact checking, X side is off their rocker, and/or lying." No, they 
let someone else say that, then just present the two sides as equal, "So 
and so said X. The other so and so says its a lie. As news people, we 
have no opinion at all, or if we do, its the opinion of the person that 
pays, not the opinion of someone that cares about which one of them *is* 
telling the truth."

Personally, I consider someone like Chopra to be a completely useless 
source of any information, but... he just muddies the waters. The wackos 
on the other side, can't legally burn every copy of a book they don't 
like, but they sure as damn will do the next best thing, and ban it from 
as many places as possible, if allowed. In other words, the choice is 
between having some moron give bad information, and having a lot of 
people believe it, or someone telling you that you are not even 
**allowed** to decide what information you get to pick from, when 
looking for facts. This.. should scare people. And seriously, it is how 
the right thinks, about religion, about science they don't like, about 
medical things they don't like, about social things they don't like, 
etc. You can pick one of any three approved things, but you can't even 
look at the 497 unapproved ones they deemed, "too dangerous to allow you 
to even know about." That none of the three approved ones work, doesn't 
matter, they are protecting you from the other 480 that don't either, 
and the 17 that they don't like, find icky, seem ungodly, etc., some of 
which work well, and others at least *do* work, if badly.

All that matters is if they can approve of your choices before hand. 
Hell, the whole political system is that way in the US. You don't pick 
who get presented for election, you don't get to pick which one of those 
"wins", the parties do, then if there is more than one of them, in most 
states you can't pick a Democrat, if you like them better than a 
Republican, should you happen to be registered Republican, or vise versa 
(this being explained that you need to let the "party" pick its 
candidate for itself, since, apparently its the candidate best for the 
"party" not your state, or country, that matters), then, finally, you 
get to pick between the two left, or any random, no name, non-moneyed 
extra that might be floating around. The result is, you get people 
shackled, ankle to ankle with their party, in most cases, and if that 
party drifts away from its core values, turning more and more to the 
right (I haven't seen a single damn case of either of them ever moving 
more left in the US), the "choice" you get is, short of pure accident, a 
representation of what the *party* wants, not what the people think they 
need.

Frankly, I am not sure why they bother campagning at all at this point. 
If both parties fielded candidates, and all they said was, "we stand for 
our party", we would still end up with one of them in office, and they 
would still ignore the public's interest, and push for what ever their 
party thinks the country needs at this point (while completely ignoring 
the public). Just look at the fiasco in Wisconsin, where they pretty 
much just declared that all the protest where from a) people too stupid 
to understand, and b) unions, not actual concerned citizens. Or, the 
equal fiasco in the federal government right now, with some idiot 
suggesting they, "keep the governments hands off of people's medicare", 
by effectively erasing it for everyone younger than a certain age, so 
that they go right back to where everyone was *before* the program 
existed. Except for the "vouchers", which I imagine would, like the 
vouchers for private schools, work just as well, you know, by producing 
"worse" results, over all, when someone bothers to check the numbers, 
than "public" schools, which are failing with the same grace and 
government disinterest as certain deep water oil wells...

I am just waiting for the Regressives to decide that they need to "save 
money" by cutting Bushes "No Child Left Behind" program, thus killing 
two birds with one stone. They, "reduce government", and eliminate the, 
generally otherwise useless, program that produced all those disturbing 
numbers that suggest voucher systems don't work, and that "private" 
schools are probably actually almost as bad as fundi-gelical home 
schooling in some cases (not to be confused with the maybe 1% taught by 
parents with lots of money, time, and high educations, who *don't* buy 
books from Answer In Genesis, or the fundi-home school sources, for 
their kids "science" education, "adjusted" history, and various other 
atrocities).

Post a reply to this message

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-humans

I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 2:27 PM, Invisible wrote:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-humans
>
>
> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.

I'm just gobsmacked.
Be afraid be very, very afraid that there are people in the educated 
world that can ask those types of questions and those that will answer them.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 2:27 PM, Invisible wrote:
> > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-humans
> >
> >
> > I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.

> I'm just gobsmacked.
> Be afraid be very, very afraid that there are people in the educated 
> world that can ask those types of questions and those that will answer them.

  What I find curious is that, as far as I know, the majority of Christians
in the world don't believe that the universe is literally 6000 years old,
but that the first chapters of Genesis are figurative, a poetic description
of how the universe, the Earth and life came to be. The Young Earth
Creationists actually form a minority of all existing Christians in the
world. However, they are the most vocal ones, the ones who make the most
noise and, unfortunately for the United States (and perhaps a few other
countries), the ones who push it most into politics and education. This gives
the false impression that the vast majority of Christians are Young Earth
Creationists.

  Young Earth Creationists have a terrible aversion towards the theory of
evolution. The *only* reason for this aversion is that they perceive it as
an ungodly attempt at explaining the origins of humans by natural means,
rather than being created. However, although that's the only reason, they
feel such a strong aversion towards the whole concept that they extend it
well beyond that core reason and state that basically *everything* about
the theory of evolution must be false. (For example, what possible reason
can a creationist have to believe that genetic mutations are rare and
always destructive and cannot possibly explain the diversity of life?
There is no reason other than that they are just expanding their aversion
to the entirety of the theory and perceive it to be *entirely* wrong in all
possible aspects, even in aspects that don't really matter from a religious
point of view.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>
> I'm just gobsmacked.

Ditto.

> Be afraid be very, very afraid that there are people in the educated
> world that can ask those types of questions and those that will answer
> them.

I honestly can't decide whether this is deadpan spoof or perfectly serious.

(Isn't there a law of the Internet about this effect?)

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 3:26 PM, Invisible wrote:

>
> I honestly can't decide whether this is deadpan spoof or perfectly serious.
>

I think the answer is serious and I hope the question is a spoof. I 
thought that the questioner was a child until I saw that he signs 
himself Dr. L.B., U.S.

> (Isn't there a law of the Internet about this effect?)

You're right it is Hitler's fault. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

You won't get an argument from me.
Although to be perfectly honest, I've never met one of these wackos in 
the flesh. I'm sure that if I did then I would "make my excuses and leave".

Either that or tell them to go forth and multiply. If you know what I mean.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...

And apparently the results are conclusive:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

America is the most religious first-world country, and it also has the 
highest rates of crime, poor health, etc.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> America is the most religious first-world country, and it also has the 
> highest rates of crime, poor health, etc.

  Ironically the USA is one of the few *secular* western governments.
(Well, at least on paper.)

  Still ironically, most European governments are by definition not secular
(because most of them have official state churches), yet the governments and
churches are usually kept very separate (at least in lawmaking and
political discourse). For example the Finnish constitution has no section
that states that the government must not endorse any religion, and Finland
has an official state church (which gets all kinds of governmental
privileges that no other denominations get). Yet Finland is extremely
secular, both politically and culturally (significantly more than the US).
The same is true for many other European countries.

  Many people have wondered if there's a causality link.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:01, Stephen wrote:
> Be afraid be very, very afraid that there are people in the educated world
> that can ask those types of questions and those that will answer them.

The guy asking the questions was asking them in order to show the guy 
answering them that the guy answering had no actual answers. The guy asking 
if they were white meat or dark meat is basically mocking the fundamentalist.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:55:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> True enough. But, the question is where is the tipping point. Where do
> people stop accepting, as a general whole, obvious lies, simply because
> a lot of people say they believe them?

There's a bit of herd mentality that takes place when it comes to 
believing crazy stuff.  I do wonder (as Bill Maher once postulated) if 
people were raised believing in magic beans and beanstalks if they'd 
defend it to the death when they grew up.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:27:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-
humans
> 
> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.

They are serious - it does look a lot like someone's having a joke, but 
young-Earth creationists really do believe in the literal truth of the 
bible as a historic record of how the Earth and humanity came into 
existence, and anything to the contrary is rejected because it isn't 
consistent with the bible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 8:57, Warp wrote:
>    Many people have wondered if there's a causality link.

Well, I think the US was originally colonized by people who wanted their own 
religion rather than the state religion, so that sort of makes sense. The 
laws say "the state can't force me to change my religion", and it's 
*because* the people coming here were sufficiently religious that they'd 
spend three months crossing an ocean and leaving everything they knew behind 
in order to be able to do their own religion exactly as they liked.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:45:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Either that or tell them to go forth and multiply. If you know what I
> mean.

But they can't math. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, I think the US was originally colonized by people who wanted their own 
> religion rather than the state religion, so that sort of makes sense. The 
> laws say "the state can't force me to change my religion", and it's 
> *because* the people coming here were sufficiently religious that they'd 
> spend three months crossing an ocean and leaving everything they knew behind 
> in order to be able to do their own religion exactly as they liked.

  I find it implausible that all, or even the majority of, or even a
significant portion of, the people who moved to the US did so for religious
reasons. I have always understood that the main motivation was economic
(most people who moved there were poor, who were after a better life and
better opportunities).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 9:12, Warp wrote:
>    I find it implausible that all, or even the majority of, or even a
> significant portion of, the people who moved to the US did so for religious
> reasons. I have always understood that the main motivation was economic

Initially, much of the immigration in (say) the later 1500's and early 
1600's (i.e., after it was not too hard to survive but before it was what 
you'd call crowded), much of it was based on philosophies.

After that, sure, it was the land of opportunity. When people were regularly 
starving during the winter, not so much. :-)

At least, that's what we're taught here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 9:12, Warp wrote:
> for religious reasons.

Remember too that the time period we're talking about, the churches had 
*much* more political power in Europe than they do now.
-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:04:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 8:57, Warp wrote:
>>    Many people have wondered if there's a causality link.
> 
> Well, I think the US was originally colonized by people who wanted their
> own religion rather than the state religion, so that sort of makes
> sense. The laws say "the state can't force me to change my religion",
> and it's *because* the people coming here were sufficiently religious
> that they'd spend three months crossing an ocean and leaving everything
> they knew behind in order to be able to do their own religion exactly as
> they liked.

That's what I recall as well - the first British settlers were the 
Pilgrims (as I recall) who were trying to escape the state mandated 
religion because they didn't agree with it.

But it was a mix of religious and economic reasons.  The thing that it 
seems many on the extreme right never learned or seem to have forgotten 
is that many of the founders were not religious - but Jefferson, Adams, 
and Franklin (in particular) are elevated to being some sort of "3 more 
disciples of Jesus" when in fact their beliefs were secular (and that's 
pretty well documented).

It always makes me laugh (because the other option is to cry) when 
Christian fundamentalist Republicans invoke the names of Jefferson, 
Adams, and Franklin in a religious context - because obviously they have 
no grasp of history.

<sarcasm>But hey, the US public education system is the best in the 
world.  That's why we can afford to cut funds for it.</sarcasm>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It always makes me laugh (because the other option is to cry) when 
> Christian fundamentalist Republicans invoke the names of Jefferson, 
> Adams, and Franklin in a religious context - because obviously they have 
> no grasp of history.

  It's sad when using argument from authority by referencing famous people
who really were believers is not enough, but they have to fabricate faith
even on outspoken atheists, just because they are well known. (I have seen
several times people seriously claiming that Einstein believed in the
Christian God, completely disregarding and ignoring the fact that Einstein
explicitly and expressly stated several times that he did not. He used the
word "God" sometimes in the pantheistic sense, meaning the same as
"universe".)

  (It often also works in the other direction: Historical people who were
religious are claimed to have been atheists, for the sole reason that they
did bad things.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 5:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 9:12, Warp wrote:
>> for religious reasons.
>
> Remember too that the time period we're talking about, the churches had
> *much* more political power in Europe than they do now.

We were taught that it was to escape religious intolerance and oppression.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/12 17:06, Warp a écrit :
>    Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
>
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389
>

The main problem with the creationists, is that they comfound theory and 
dogma.
I propose a theory, you chalenge it, comfront it with your experiments 
and observations. If it pass, we have explained something and have a 
beter understanding of the world. If it don't pass, we continue 
observing and experimenting until we find a beter theory.

I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find facts 
that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented them!
If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist them until 
they fit.


Another problem is that they stubornly refuse to acknolege the time 
frame and the gigantic life pool implied in evolution.

They want to go from primitive proto-live cells to human in under 10000 
years, some say 5000 years from Earth formation to now... In fact, we 
are talking about some 2 to 4 billions years. We are talking of 
population pool also in 100's of billions for unicellular organisms. 
With generation times that can be as short as 20 minutes...

With those numbers, probabilities in the order of 0.000001% tend to look 
as 100%.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/12 19:10, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and constant
>> bullshit,
>
> Never, because there will always be people who will take 'belief' over
> 'knowledge' because they've been conditioned to do so.
>
> Jim

They take beleif over knowlege because they thing that the beleif IS 
proven knowlege, and actual knowlege is suputations and dreamings or 
even some kind of fraud.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 5:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:45:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Either that or tell them to go forth and multiply. If you know what I
>> mean.
>
> But they can't math. ;)
>
> Jim

In that case they can F' off ;-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/13 12:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:27:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-
> humans
>>
>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>
> They are serious - it does look a lot like someone's having a joke, but
> young-Earth creationists really do believe in the literal truth of the
> bible as a historic record of how the Earth and humanity came into
> existence, and anything to the contrary is rejected because it isn't
> consistent with the bible.
>
> Jim

Even if there is something that can be called "God", and that thing is 
unfailible.
It's "teatchings" where reported by some men, who are failible.
The bible was recorded by failible men.
It's content was passed by oral tradition for over a millenia, with all 
the changes and morfing that this imply.
Peoples with somewhat similar names are often merged into one.
Peoples with somewhat similar stories can also get merged into one, 
keeping the most memorable name.
The languages used did change a LOT in that time.
The writen form was translated countless times.

Each step does bring some alterations.

Now, how can you view that kind of text?


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find facts 
> that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented them!
> If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist them until 
> they fit.

  You forgot the psychological projection, iow. projecting the flaws of
your dogma onto the scientific theory it contradicts. (For example,
"creationism is not science" becomes "evolution is not science", and
"creationism requires faith" becomes "evolution requires as much faith
as any religion, if not even more".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/13 12:12, Warp a écrit :
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Well, I think the US was originally colonized by people who wanted their own
>> religion rather than the state religion, so that sort of makes sense. The
>> laws say "the state can't force me to change my religion", and it's
>> *because* the people coming here were sufficiently religious that they'd
>> spend three months crossing an ocean and leaving everything they knew behind
>> in order to be able to do their own religion exactly as they liked.
>
>    I find it implausible that all, or even the majority of, or even a
> significant portion of, the people who moved to the US did so for religious
> reasons. I have always understood that the main motivation was economic
> (most people who moved there were poor, who were after a better life and
> better opportunities).
>

Usualy, the poors tend to be less educated and more religious than rich 
and well educated peoples.

Many poors tend to cling to religion as a kind of life jacket.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/13 14:05, Warp a écrit :
> Alain<aze### [at] qwertyorg>  wrote:
>> I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find facts
>> that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented them!
>> If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist them until
>> they fit.
>
>    You forgot the psychological projection, iow. projecting the flaws of
> your dogma onto the scientific theory it contradicts. (For example,
> "creationism is not science" becomes "evolution is not science", and
> "creationism requires faith" becomes "evolution requires as much faith
> as any religion, if not even more".)
>

Sadly, it's absolutely true :(


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:06:15 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
>> frightening...
>>
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-
> progresses-006545
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389
> 
> It's frightening.  Rationality has gone out of the window for some of our 
> more fundamentalist states.
> 
> Sadly, that includes Utah, where I currently live.

what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p


-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:35:58 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> It's frightening.  Rationality has gone out of the window for some of
>> our more fundamentalist states.
>> 
>> Sadly, that includes Utah, where I currently live.
> 
> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p

Well, interestingly enough, while we've got the stupid billboard, nothing 
has been taken up in the state legislature mandating that creationism be 
taught as part of the science curriculum because those who preach 
creationism don't understand the meaning of the word "Theory" as used in 
the "Theory of Evolution" (hint:  It doesn't mean "hypothesis").

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:47:21 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/12 19:10, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and constant
>>> bullshit,
>>
>> Never, because there will always be people who will take 'belief' over
>> 'knowledge' because they've been conditioned to do so.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> They take beleif over knowlege because they thing that the beleif IS
> proven knowlege, and actual knowlege is suputations and dreamings or
> even some kind of fraud.

I don't think that's the case, honestly - they think that belief 
*supercedes* proven knowledge, and that if one has faith, one doesn't 
need pesky scientific facts.  The belief seems to be that what has been 
revealed by God to them will be borne out by the facts once we have them 
all, and we just don't have all the facts yet.

"Belief" is the antithesis of "knowledge" as far as I'm concerned.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 5:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:45:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Either that or tell them to go forth and multiply. If you know what I
>>> mean.
>>
>> But they can't math. ;)
>>
>> Jim
> 
> In that case they can F' off ;-P

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:01:37 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/13 12:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:27:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-
and-
>> humans
>>>
>>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>>
>> They are serious - it does look a lot like someone's having a joke, but
>> young-Earth creationists really do believe in the literal truth of the
>> bible as a historic record of how the Earth and humanity came into
>> existence, and anything to the contrary is rejected because it isn't
>> consistent with the bible.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Even if there is something that can be called "God", and that thing is
> unfailible.
> It's "teatchings" where reported by some men, who are failible. The
> bible was recorded by failible men. It's content was passed by oral
> tradition for over a millenia, with all the changes and morfing that
> this imply. Peoples with somewhat similar names are often merged into
> one. Peoples with somewhat similar stories can also get merged into one,
> keeping the most memorable name.
> The languages used did change a LOT in that time. The writen form was
> translated countless times.
> 
> Each step does bring some alterations.
> 
> Now, how can you view that kind of text?

At best, as an incomplete history (some would even say 'anthology of 
various mythological stories") spread originally through oral traditions 
(which IIRC is how it started), and just like the telephone game, the 
message gets corrupted a little bit more with each retelling.

Personally, I see it as pure literature that is mostly fiction, with just 
enough truth in it to make the masses follow along.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:24:57 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It always makes me laugh (because the other option is to cry) when
>> Christian fundamentalist Republicans invoke the names of Jefferson,
>> Adams, and Franklin in a religious context - because obviously they
>> have no grasp of history.
> 
>   It's sad when using argument from authority by referencing famous
>   people
> who really were believers is not enough, but they have to fabricate
> faith even on outspoken atheists, just because they are well known. (I
> have seen several times people seriously claiming that Einstein believed
> in the Christian God, completely disregarding and ignoring the fact that
> Einstein explicitly and expressly stated several times that he did not.
> He used the word "God" sometimes in the pantheistic sense, meaning the
> same as "universe".)
> 
>   (It often also works in the other direction: Historical people who
>   were
> religious are claimed to have been atheists, for the sole reason that
> they did bad things.)

You'll get no disagreement on either of those points.  The best example 
of that (at the risk of Godwinning the thread) is Hitler - some claim 
that Hitler was an atheist because he did things; others claim that he 
did bad things because he was an atheist.

But most of the people who *actually* did the bad things (not that Hitler 
didn't) were undeniably Christians who were following Hitler.  Hitler's 
actual choice of beliefs really is a minor detail in the Holocaust.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't think that's the case, honestly - they think that belief
> *supercedes*  proven knowledge, and that if one has faith, one doesn't
> need pesky scientific facts.  The belief seems to be that what has been
> revealed by God to them will be borne out by the facts once we have them
> all, and we just don't have all the facts yet.
>

I think you are correct.

> "Belief" is the antithesis of "knowledge" as far as I'm concerned.

I think it is "Faith" is the antithesis of "knowledge"

With faith you don't need knowledge.

BTW Mid June is the date ATM.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In that case they can F' off;-P
> LOL

That's what I meant in the first place.
Go forth and multiply. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 8:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> At best, as an incomplete history

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=missing+chapters+of+the+bible&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=a2d4d19bddca1d1b


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:12:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't think that's the case, honestly - they think that belief
>> *supercedes*  proven knowledge, and that if one has faith, one doesn't
>> need pesky scientific facts.  The belief seems to be that what has been
>> revealed by God to them will be borne out by the facts once we have
>> them all, and we just don't have all the facts yet.
>>
>>
> I think you are correct.
> 
>> "Belief" is the antithesis of "knowledge" as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I think it is "Faith" is the antithesis of "knowledge"
> 
> With faith you don't need knowledge.

Yeah, faith and belief are close in meaning, but not exactly synonyms.  
Belief is closer to knowledge than faith, I think that would be fair to 
say - for example, one can believe that (for example) the theory of 
evolution is the way life developed on Earth, but that belief could be 
based on knowledge that the people who have studied it and reached that 
conclusion followed good scientific principles.

It's a fairly fine distinction, I think.

> BTW Mid June is the date ATM.

Good to know, keep me posted. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:13:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> In that case they can F' off;-P
>> LOL
> 
> That's what I meant in the first place. Go forth and multiply. :-D

Nicely played. :P

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:17:58 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 8:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> At best, as an incomplete history
> 
> http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=missing
+chapters+of+the+bible&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=a2d4d19bddca1d1b

Yeah, I've heard of several of those missing chapters before. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:48:14 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/13 14:05, Warp a écrit :
>> Alain<aze### [at] qwertyorg>  wrote:
>>> I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find
>>> facts that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented
>>> them! If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist
>>> them until they fit.
>>
>>    You forgot the psychological projection, iow. projecting the flaws
>>    of
>> your dogma onto the scientific theory it contradicts. (For example,
>> "creationism is not science" becomes "evolution is not science", and
>> "creationism requires faith" becomes "evolution requires as much faith
>> as any religion, if not even more".)
>>
>>
> Sadly, it's absolutely true :(

Yep.  I personally think it comes down to the use of "theory" to describe 
evolution.

The creationists have used "theory" to mean "hypothesis" when in 
scientific usage (such as in talking about the 'theory of evolution') it 
refers to a body of knowledge that is known to be scientifically 
validated.

Now either those creationists are uneducated as to the multiple 
definitions of the word 'theory' and which one actually applies when one 
talks about the 'theory of evolution' (hint, it's not the 'hypothesis of 
evolution' definition, which is what they push), or they are deliberately 
misusing the word so as to push their dogmatic approach to trying to make 
creationism seem like science.

Creationism is a hypothesis.  Evolution is scientific fact.  They do not 
merit equal consideration in a science classroom in school.

Of course, if they're willing to let science teachers come in and teach 
evolution as part of a Sunday School curriculum in church, that would be 
at least somewhat fair.  Let those who understand critical thinking 
skills teach kids some critical thinking skills - that would be a good 
thing.

But I'm sure the creationists wouldn't be in favour of that, because 
critical thinking skills undermine creationist dogma.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 12:35, nemesis wrote:
> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p

I'm pretty sure the mormons don't take Genesis as literal.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 14:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yep.  I personally think it comes down to the use of "theory" to describe
> evolution.

Nah. That's just an easy target. If it was the "facts" of evolution or the 
"law" of evolution, people still wouldn't believe it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> On 4/13/2011 12:35, nemesis wrote:
>> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p
> 
> I'm pretty sure the mormons don't take Genesis as literal.

well, whatever ancient egyptian/native american golden book they follow.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message