|
Ua nana `oe i ka puke "Olelo No'eau" mai Kawena Pukui mai. Ma hea e lawe mai 'oe i kela puke ma New York? E haumana `oe i na mea no'eau no ka po'e a pau ma ka honua? He loa kau aho. Maika`i kena. olu'olu'ia au i ke kakau'ia me ia 'oe i ka olelo Hawai'i. Pono au e ha'i aku i ku'u tutu wahine i keia mea.
Sir Kaikillah
Translations for the poor mainlanders on these boards would be appreciated.
Ok, so your universal translator is broken too?
I don't know that it is headed anywhere. It seemed to me that there was at least one point in earth's history that there weren't any ice caps (which you mentioned). If there was a meteor that hit the earth and covered it in a layer of clouds/dust I can understand how that could have "jump started" the ice ages.
Long lag after that impact and the next Ice Age, with a warmer planet in between. Ice ages don't appear to be triggered by impacts, but rather by natural variations in the Earth's orbit and/or natural solar output over long stretches of time.
Since we have always had polar ice caps for far longer than I have been alive, it is difficult for me to understand how we wouldn't have them unless the earth wasn't on a tilt at some point. If the earth wasn't on a tilt and something made it go on a tilt, what stopped the tilting? Or is it stopped? If the meteor was the primary cause of the ice ages, then it feels like the earth is basically "healing" itself and that "global warming" is just a natural evolutionary progression of the planet.
See above. Would that it were that simple!
Seriously, at best this is a passing interest right now and I probably won't care two weeks from now. Aside from Al Gore, I'm not really sure why we should be all concerned about global warming -- it just feels to me like it is a fairly natural progression of things. In either case, I think that there are people out there studying this who are far smarter than I am (and smarter than Al Gore is) and are looking at a whole lot more than the few lame theories I am throwing out there.
Dying of cancer is a natural progression of things, too, but I'd choose to fight it, were I in that situation. Likewise, being eaten by lions is natural, but you don't have to just stand there and take it. A warming planet will present new opportunities, to be sure (arctic shipping and oil exploration, longer growing seasons in temperate climes), and new problems as well (flooding is always on my mind, living in Houston). Whether it's natural or man-made, it probably pays to be prepared, instead of relying on luck or divine providence. (BTW, haven't seen Al's movie; I'd get too frustrated with a non-scientist trying to discuss this type of thing.)
He lawai`a no ke kai papa`u, he pôkole ke aho;
he lawai`a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.
Ua nana `oe i ka puke "Olelo No'eau" mai Kawena Pukui mai. Ma hea e lawe mai 'oe i kela puke ma New York? E haumana `oe i na mea no'eau no ka po'e a pau ma ka honua? He loa kau aho. Maika`i kena. olu'olu'ia au i ke kakau'ia me ia 'oe i ka olelo Hawai'i.
Pono au e ha'i aku i ku'u tutu wahine i keia mea.
Aloha
Sir Kaikillah
If my dodgy understanding of the Hawaiian language serves me, it seems I've annoyed you by suggesting that a proverb is why I think Hawaiians are a great people.
Believe it or not, it was a Hawaiian lady named Bergen Williams (IMDB.com her) who taught me a thing or two about Hawaiian culture, more so than any book of Hawaiian proverbs. Probably the strongest, bravest person I've ever met. I said what I said because of her. The proverb was just me mirroring the proverb to keep one’s mind open and learn as much as you can, and I was relating that to believing that I have something to learn from every culture.
Ua nana `oe i ka puke "Olelo No'eau" mai Kawena Pukui mai. Ma hea e lawe mai 'oe i kela puke ma New York? E haumana `oe i na mea no'eau no ka po'e a pau ma ka honua? He loa kau aho. Maika`i kena. olu'olu'ia au i ke kakau'ia me ia 'oe i ka olelo Hawai'i. Pono au e ha'i aku i ku'u tutu wahine i keia mea.
Sir KaikillahTranslations for the poor mainlanders on these boards would be appreciated.Ok, so your universal translator is broken too?
Jade quoted a book of Hawaiian Proverbs:
He lawai`a no ke kai papa`u, he pôkole ke aho;he lawai`a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.
A fisher man of a shallow sea has a short line.
A fisher man of the deep blue sea, has a long line.
So I reply'
"You have seen the book "Oleleo No'eau" by Kawena Pukui. Where do you find a book like that in New York? You must be a student of the clever doings of all the people of the earth. YOu have a long line. That is good. I am glad to write with you in the Hawaiian Language. I will have to tell my grandmother about this.
Ok, so your universal translator is broken too?
Jade quoted a book of Hawaiian Proverbs:
He lawai`a no ke kai papa`u, he pôkole ke aho;he lawai`a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.
A fisher man of a shallow sea has a short line.
A fisher man of the deep blue sea, has a long line.
So I reply'
"You have seen the book "Oleleo No'eau" by Kawena Pukui. Where do you find a book like that in New York? You must be a student of the clever doings of all the people of the earth. YOu have a long line. That is good. I am glad to write with you in the Hawaiian Language. I will have to tell my grandmother about this.
Lol... so much ambiguity in my understanding of words.
In that last sentence I knew grandmother but couldn't understand a lick of the rest of it.
Sorry, Killah. I'm very new to this. :)
Thanks for the full translation.
I read the possiblity of the word 'bad' and attached a sort of, before you read...
On a side note: I don't have any Hawaiian folklore books yet. Can you recommend a good English version? You've seen what I do with Hawaiian.
He lawai`a no ke kai papa`u, he pôkole ke aho;
he lawai`a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.Ua nana `oe i ka puke "Olelo No'eau" mai Kawena Pukui mai. Ma hea e lawe mai 'oe i kela puke ma New York? E haumana `oe i na mea no'eau no ka po'e a pau ma ka honua? He loa kau aho. Maika`i kena. olu'olu'ia au i ke kakau'ia me ia 'oe i ka olelo Hawai'i.
Pono au e ha'i aku i ku'u tutu wahine i keia mea.
Aloha
Sir Kaikillah
If my dodgy understanding of the Hawaiian language serves me, it seems I've annoyed you by suggesting that a proverb is why I think Hawaiians are a great people.
Believe it or not, it was a Hawaiian lady named Bergen Williams (IMDB.com her) who taught me a thing or two about Hawaiian culture, more so than any book of Hawaiian proverbs. Probably the strongest, bravest person I've ever met. I said what I said because of her. The proverb was just me mirroring the proverb to keep one’s mind open and learn as much as you can, and I was relating that to believing that I have something to learn from every culture.
I'm not annoyed I'm glad. I'm just wondering where a person learns such things so far from Hawaii. I recognized the proverb because I have been feeding it to high school youths on Maui. You probably no more about Hawaiian culture than most of my neighbors.
It's cool.
It's cool.
Thanks, bro. I was afraid I'd somehow come of across as trite and just wanted to explain the real respect I held.
I recognized the proverb because I have been feeding it to high school youths on Maui.
Ah... another high school teacher on Maui? Are you by chance acquainted with my good friend Bryan Smith (tall, long brown hair, crazy blue eyes, talks like an episode of Kung Fu only better? Teaches history on Maui, but I'm not sure of the name of the high school). If you see him, give him an "aloha!" and a barley soda on my behalf... if not, inquire of Coconut Willie, I'm sure he knows him!
I recognized the proverb because I have been feeding it to high school youths on Maui.Ah... another high school teacher on Maui? Are you by chance acquainted with my good friend Bryan Smith (tall, long brown hair, crazy blue eyes, talks like an episode of Kung Fu only better? Teaches history on Maui, but I'm not sure of the name of the high school). If you see him, give him an "aloha!" and a barley soda on my behalf... if not, inquire of Coconut Willie, I'm sure he knows him!
Actually I work more as a highschool support specialist out of Maui Community College. I kinda do things to supplement the coarses offered to Special Motivation Classes at various highschools on the island, which are students who are not going to pass thier grade or can't sit in a regular class room for behavior problems. It is usually the last step before getting exspelled from school. Anyway i don't know Bryan Smith, is he a gamer? I am always looking for cool gamers on Maui, if only to talk about gaming. Anyway I will keep an ear out for your friend
One question I do have that I haven't really looked for an answer to -- Is there evidence that there was ever a time that the earth was not tilted on its axis?
The angle and direction of the tilt changes over time, or so I understand. I do not know if there is any evidence of it not being tilted for any length of time. All of the other planets have tilted axis, so I assume that it is natural and not the result of impacts.
Actually I work more as a highschool support specialist out of Maui Community College. I kinda do things to supplement the coarses offered to Special Motivation Classes at various highschools on the island, which are students who are not going to pass thier grade or can't sit in a regular class room for behavior problems. It is usually the last step before getting exspelled from school. Anyway i don't know Bryan Smith, is he a gamer? I am always looking for cool gamers on Maui, if only to talk about gaming. Anyway I will keep an ear out for your friend
Righteous work, Kaikillah; respects for that. Alas, no, Bryan doesn't game; he does yoga, pracices Chinese herbal medicine, and enagages in Taoist philosophy. A fellow well worth meeting, whom I had the great good fortune to meet on the mainland (and was not surprised at all to see go back to Hawai'i).
The angle and direction of the tilt changes over time, or so I understand. I do not know if there is any evidence of it not being tilted for any length of time. All of the other planets have tilted axis, so I assume that it is natural and not the result of impacts.
Right on all counts (although Mercury's tilt is only like 0.01 degree, so it essentially has none; Uranus' is like 98 degrees, so it's more or less "on its side" with respect to the plane of its orbit).
In answer to some previous posts: The Earth's axial tilt varies more or less predictably between 22.1 degrees and 24.5 degrees, with a 41,000-year period (one of the "Milankovitch Cycles"). There's also a 26,000-year recession period, and some much smaller short-term variations.
There is no evolution propoganda.Please. From what I know of humanity, there is propaganda for EVERY point of view. It doesn't matter how correct something is, there is always many people refusing to even consider that the other side could possably be correct. That is what propaganda is. I didn't bother to look at any of those web sites, but I know that somewhere out there someone is saying "of course creationism is wrong - it's just silly. That's why evolution is right." There is propaganda for everything.
Please pardon my humanity-bashing, but it's true.
I suppose if you use the definition that any advocating a viewpoint is propaganda, I can't disagree. Of course, in that case, we must live in a completely fact-less world, and then I guess there must also be gravity propoganda, and fire propaganda, and world is round propaganda. I constantly read about these things, and have encountered scientific literature explaining them which convinced me they are true, but I guess that's just someone trying to change my opinion. We should all keep an open mind: it's entirely possible that gravity does not exist and that it is invisible angels pulling everything towards the Earth.
Except therer is a difference between evolution and those other theories your suggessted. We can test them. We can test Gravity, we can test Fire, we can test the shape of the earth. And every time, science (or experience, or common sense even) give you the same answer.
Things fall down (Or at least "together")- Gravity
Burning thing are hot
And the Earth is round.
The problem I have with Evolution is that it ISN'T verifiable. You can't run an experiement i nthe lab that will prove or disprove evolution. And yet a lot of scientists present it as fact, when it is really just theory. I get why scientists support the theory of evolution. If you take God (and thererfore creation) out of the picture, then evolution really is the best theory left.
But it is only a theory, and I doubt, short of a time machine, it will ever be proven one way or the other. I wish scientists were more honest and up front about this. Now as a theory, I think there are still a number of holes and problems with it, but that is fine, becasue science is always improving and refining theories.
If scientists were happy to admit openly and freely that evolution is only a theory, and yes, it still has some problems, but it is by far the best theory we have, so we are going to go with it, then we would have a lot less aggro I feel.
But I think part (maybe a lot) of the problem is that the theory or evolution has been siezed by athiests, as a means of explaing the world without God, and so to them, pushing evolution has become propoganda, and so the ebate now is between two sides with conflicting agendas (Athiests and Thiests), and science is either relegated to the sidelines, or lumped in on the athiest side.
Just as an aside, I am constantly amazed at thought process that says if we can discover the natural (or scientific) process that produces an outcome previously attributed to God, then that DICTATES that Gos could NOT have played a role.
Evolution would not disprove creation. Yes, it would seem to disprove 6 day creation, but what says God couldn't work through the means of evolution, guiding it etc, to create the world as we know it.
Now, I have other theological problems with so-called theistic evolution (namely the relationship between death and sin), but I know a number of intelligent, theologically astute christians, whise opinions I greatly respect, who lean towards theistic evolution.
Except therer is a difference between evolution and those other theories your suggessted. We can test them.
Evolution is observable. While not as conspicuous as gravity it's just as observable and predictable. The theory of evolution is not a guess, it's a quantification of a process we can see. Just like the theory of gravity is the math we use to measure falling. Evolution isn't just about animals. Its the process by which fundamental particles become complex emergent objects, whether we're talking about quarks combining into galaxies, proteins combining into people, or letters combining into novels. The understanding of evolution is vital to many branches of science, both physical and abstract. The beliefs of its proponents don't change the fact that evolution is as real and inescapable as gravity.
Well now that someone's thought of evolution we could quite easily observe simple species (eg starfishes and whatever) over the next couple of hundred years and see if it holds true. I don't think science is going anywhere, and there's no reason not to take a long view (like 20 human generations) in terms of observing phenomena.
You can claim it's unverifiable now, but maybe your descendants won't be able to in 200 years. Especially if they are all 300 pound hairless telepaths hooked into computers :)
Except therer is a difference between evolution and those other theories your suggessted. We can test them.Evolution is observable. While not as conspicuous as gravity it's just as observable and predictable. The theory of evolution is not a guess, it's a quantification of a process we can see. Just like the theory of gravity is the math we use to measure falling. Evolution isn't just about animals. Its the process by which fundamental particles become complex emergent objects, whether we're talking about quarks combining into galaxies, proteins combining into people, or letters combining into novels. The understanding of evolution is vital to many branches of science, both physical and abstract. The beliefs of its proponents don't change the fact that evolution is as real and inescapable as gravity.
I don't see how evoution is observable or predictable at all. I have not seen ANY hard, indisputable evidence of evolution like you have with say gravity. In fact the evidence to me seems to be exactly the opposite.
How long have humans been breeding domesticated animals (has to be at least 5,000 years I would think, probably longer). In all that time, how many completely new species have we developed? None!
Surely, with farmers actively seeking to engage in selective breeding to improve their bloodline, we would have developed a new species? Sure, we have developed countless variations of existing species, but no new ones (at least that I am aware of).
Even with the examples you gave, how many of them are repeatable in the science lab? How many are observable in the natural world? The one example you gave we can observe, letters into a novel, only occurs under the explicit guidance of the author (or creator).
Please show me this observable, testable, quantifiable, verifiable evidence of evolution. I have not seen any.
Well now that someone's thought of evolution we could quite easily observe simple species (eg starfishes and whatever) over the next couple of hundred years and see if it holds true. I don't think science is going anywhere, and there's no reason not to take a long view (like 20 human generations) in terms of observing phenomena.
You can claim it's unverifiable now, but maybe your descendants won't be able to in 200 years. Especially if they are all 300 pound hairless telepaths hooked into computers :)
Yep, and I am fine with this approach. My point is NOT that evolution is WRONG, just that it is an UNPROVEN THEORY. If people could be honest about the fact it is yet to be proven, then thigns would run a lot smoother.
But as I said above, I am doubtful if we ever will see any proof of evolution, as we have yet to see it happen with the selctive breeding of domestic animals.
The problem I have with Evolution is that it ISN'T verifiable. You can't run an experiement i nthe lab that will prove or disprove evolution. And yet a lot of scientists present it as fact, when it is really just theory.
Sorry, but a point of teminology is absolutely driving me nuts here (worse that "rouge"). "Evolution" = changes in life forms over time. This is observable in the fossil record. One can observe burns, falling objects, and changes in the fossil assemblage. All verifiable.
"Natural selection" as the driving force behind evolution is the theory you seem to have a problem with. If we're going to discuss these things, let's at least make it clear what we're discussing.
And yet a lot of scientists present it as fact, when it is really just theory.
As they point out the THEORY that the planets orbit the Sun (which the Catholic Church once went to great lengths to point out was "just a theory," because it conflicted with the party line). Germs causing disease is "just a theory," too. I've posted at length about this before; the scientific term "theory" doesn't mean what laypeople assume it does. Creationists love to call out that evolution by means of natural selection is "just a theory," but if we put stickers saying so in textbooks, we should also put stickers saying that World War II was "just a theory" and that yeast making cake rise is "just a theory" and so on and so on. You can't just single out natural selection and pretend it's the only one. Everything we learn in chemistry class is "just a theory!", but nobody yells that over and over because the theories we learn in chemistry don't contradict a "hot-button" religious movement.
Also, in science, no theory is ever "proven." Every theory is automatically an "UNPROVEN THEORY"!
For the same reasons, I'd also yell at any so-called "scientist" who refers to natural selection as a means of evolution as "fact."
How long have humans been breeding domesticated animals (has to be at least 5,000 years I would think, probably longer). In all that time, how many completely new species have we developed? None!
Not true. Modern domestic cattle (Bos taurus) are a different species from the original Bos primigenius (the aurochs), which became extinct in the 1600s. Also, the domestic gayal (Bos gaurus) is now considered a separate species from the wild gaur (Bos frontalis).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The problem I have with Evolution is that it ISN'T verifiable. You can't run an experiement i nthe lab that will prove or disprove evolution. And yet a lot of scientists present it as fact, when it is really just theory. I get why scientists support the theory of evolution. If you take God (and thererfore creation) out of the picture, then evolution really is the best theory left.
I guess astronomy isn't science either. After all, we can't actually control the interactions of real planets in the laboratory. I guess all our climate models are just theoretical too. After all, we can't actually make a storm in a lab, so I guess that means we can't make any sort of predictions about when a storm will form or in which direction it travels.
What you've said about has nothing to do with the way in which science is conducted. No astronomical theory is verifiable, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support such theories. The same goes for evolution.
But it is only a theory, and I doubt, short of a time machine, it will ever be proven one way or the other. I wish scientists were more honest and up front about this. Now as a theory, I think there are still a number of holes and problems with it, but that is fine, becasue science is always improving and refining theories.
If scientists were happy to admit openly and freely that evolution is only a theory, and yes, it still has some problems, but it is by far the best theory we have, so we are going to go with it, then we would have a lot less aggro I feel.
Why should they? All theories have problems, and the goal of science is to get them to play nice together. I suppose scientists could just throw up their hands and say "aw shucks, only a magical being can explain life" but instead, they take the evidence they have, piece it together, and form a theory. That theory is tested through observations of the natural world (just like astronomical theories are tested). There's no point in scientists saying "gosh there are still some holes in this theory" any more than there's a point of them saying "gosh, we still don't really know what causes gravity, we just know that it happens."
But I think part (maybe a lot) of the problem is that the theory or evolution has been siezed by athiests, as a means of explaing the world without God, and so to them, pushing evolution has become propoganda, and so the ebate now is between two sides with conflicting agendas (Athiests and Thiests), and science is either relegated to the sidelines, or lumped in on the athiest side.
No, the theory of creationism has been hard wired into Christians. Just like the theory of the geocentric universe was seized and eventually displaced by Gallileo. This is the same old bag of religion getting in the way of science, not vice versa. There are still significant numbers of religious scientists; it's not as if you have to be an atheist to be a scientist.
There is a correlation between education/intelligence and atheism, but we can all pretend that's a coincidence...
Evolution would not disprove creation. Yes, it would seem to disprove 6 day creation, but what says God couldn't work through the means of evolution, guiding it etc, to create the world as we know it.
Yup. And the heliocentric universe did not disprove Christianity and genetics will not disprove mormonism. The sooner Christianity can accomodate scientific evidence in its dogma, the sooner this issue will be resolved.
Yep, and I am fine with this approach. My point is NOT that evolution is WRONG, just that it is an UNPROVEN THEORY. If people could be honest about the fact it is yet to be proven, then thigns would run a lot smoother.
If people could be honest about worshipping an unproven imaginary diety, who has not made his presence directly known in over two milennia, things would run a lot smoother.
But as I said above, I am doubtful if we ever will see any proof of evolution, as we have yet to see it happen with the selctive breeding of domestic animals.
Uh...what? We have bred new species, and not only that, we've bred specific traits into dogs for about as long as humans have been in existence. Take a look at wild dogs: how many do you see that look like the doxen or the chihuaha or any other small breed that could only exist with human assistance. Why don't such animals exist in the wild? Because they'd die out. The only reason they survive is because humans take care of them and have bred them to be the way they are.
|
|
Yup. And the heliocentric universe did not disprove Christianity and genetics will not disprove mormonism. The sooner Christianity can accomodate scientific evidence in its dogma, the sooner this issue will be resolved.
I agree and disagree (not for reasons that are mentioned).
The problem (if it really is a "problem") is that science keeps making advancements and changes. Overall, this is a good thing -- it keeps us thinking, helps us understand how the world (universe) works better, keeps us solving problems and so on.
Typically, people want their religion fairly rigid and unchanging. For better or worse, I think that people don't want to think that the "rules" that define God can change.
With that in mind, I would be nervous about incorporating too much science into a religion's dogma because you never know when science will now show that the earth actually revolves around the sun or something similar.
EDIT: I am not saying that Christians (or other religions) should not consider what science tells us. We should be checking it out and doing our best to see how it all fits, but still be open to things when science makes new advancements -- making it difficult to incorporate into strict "dogma".
No astronomical theory is verifiable, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support such theories. The same goes for evolution.
Natural selection. Like I said, the fossil record changes over time; that's observation. That it happened because of natural selection is the theory.
Astronomical theories regarding movement of planets about the sun are easily verifiable -- by observation. The theory that Jupiter had moons just required a good telescope. The theory of the Big Bang is a bit more of a stretch: whenever one needs new theories to describe pieces of other theories, the waters get a bit murkier.
We have bred new species, and not only that, we've bred specific traits into dogs for about as long as humans have been in existence. Take a look at wild dogs: how many do you see that look like the doxen or the chihuaha or any other small breed that could only exist with human assistance. Why don't such animals exist in the wild? Because they'd die out.
All the domestic dog breeds are the same species, however: Canis lupus. The differing species of large cattle in India cited above still hold, however.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No astronomical theory is verifiable, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support such theories. The same goes for evolution.Natural selection. Like I said, the fossil record changes over time; that's observation. That it happened because of natural selection is the theory.
Sorry, my bad. Evolution tends to be the flashpoint word in common discourse for the idea of natural selection and it's hard not to use it that way. I feel your pain in its misuse - I am constantly launching myself into internet fights when people say "X commited a crime" or "X is guilty" when in fact X committed a tort and is the target of a civil suit.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We have bred new species, and not only that, we've bred specific traits into dogs for about as long as humans have been in existence. Take a look at wild dogs: how many do you see that look like the doxen or the chihuaha or any other small breed that could only exist with human assistance. Why don't such animals exist in the wild? Because they'd die out.All the domestic dog breeds are the same species, however: Canis lupus. The differing species of large cattle in India cited above still hold, however.
But they do show a change in a species as a result of natural selection, do they not? I realize they're the same species and tried not to make the claim that they weren't.
But they do show a change in a species as a result of natural selection, do they not? I realize they're the same species and tried not to make the claim that they weren't.
Hey... is "un-natural selection" a term? Your point is well-taken. Mevers, however, was claiming that there are no examples of the evolution of a new species through breeding. I gave him one; I'm sure we can find others if we look.
I don't even want to mention the new species of TB bacteria that are the result of inappropriate antibiotic use, because the favorite Creationist argument now allows for "microevolution" but not speciation of multicelled organisms. So I'll stick with livestock for now.
All the domestic dog breeds are the same species, however: Canis lupus.I know nothing about this. Is a St. Bernard the same species as a Chihuahua?
Yes. Genetically speaking they're the same species. If the two mated, the offspring would be fertile.
There is a correlation between education/intelligence and atheism, but we can all pretend that's a coincidence...
What? Do you mean to say that people who beleive in God are stupid? I'm sorry, but if that's your opinion, then leave that part of you out of this discussion. It's not helpful.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What? Do you mean to say that people who beleive in God are stupid? I'm sorry, but if that's your opinion, then leave that part of you out of this discussion. It's not helpful.
That's not what I said, nor is it my opinion. But thanks for caring enough to employ some deductive logic on my behalf. I do appreciate the attempt.
There is a correlation between education/intelligence and atheism, but we can all pretend that's a coincidence...
The data I've seen suggest that, statistically, there is a very strong negative correlation between education level and Creationist beliefs. Also, statistically speaking, there is a positive correlation between atheists and education level. Does this mean that Christians are stupid? Not by a long shot. It just means that, all other things being equal, an atheist is more likely on average to have had more years of school than a Christian (or, if you prefer, that hyper-educated people are more likely on average to be atheists than their less-educated peers).
Also remember that correlation does not imply any sort of cause-and-effect relationship.
Yes. Genetically speaking they're the same species. If the two mated, the offspring would be fertile.Hopefully it's one way and not the other -- ouch!!
Yeah, no kidding!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There is a correlation between education/intelligence and atheism, but we can all pretend that's a coincidence...The data I've seen suggest that, statistically, there is a very strong negative correlation between education level and Creationist beliefs. Also, statistically speaking, there is a positive correlation between atheists and education level. Does this mean that Christians are stupid? Not by a long shot. It just means that, all other things being equal, an atheist is more likely on average to have had more years of school than a Christian (or, if you prefer, that hyper-educated people are more likely on average to be atheists than their less-educated peers).
I'm not sure if I am serving my cause by providing quasi-accurate assertions to which you then attach actual data or proper qualifications, but please know that I appreciate the assist.
Edit: You added back in the correlation between atheism and education. I thought I had misstated teh correlation between creationism and education as such.
And yes, correlation =! causation.
I'm not sure if I am serving my cause by providing quasi-accurate assertions to which you then attach actual data or proper qualifications, but please know that I appreciate the assist.
Sorry, Sebastian. I know I keep stepping on your toes here, and I actually feel bad about it. As a scientist and former science teacher, I have a big bee in my bonnet about scientific accuracy. Certainly no disrespect is intended.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not sure if I am serving my cause by providing quasi-accurate assertions to which you then attach actual data or proper qualifications, but please know that I appreciate the assist.Sorry, Sebastian. I know I keep stepping on your toes here, and I actually feel bad about it. As a scientist and former science teacher, I have a big bee in my bonnet about scientific accuracy. Certainly no disrespect is intended.
No offense taken at all, I meant it when I said I appreciate the assist. If you've followed the thread for the last few pages you'll see that I'm constantly at a loss in my attempts to provide concrete data in response to creationist assertions, and I'm glad you're there filling in that gap.
No offense taken at all, I meant it when I said I appreciate the assist. If you've followed the thread for the last few pages you'll see that I'm constantly at a loss in my attempts to provide concrete data in response to creationist assertions, and I'm glad you're there filling in that gap.
Whew. I've seen your posts, and I don't want you mad at me! Seriously, the evolution-Creation debate is getting to be a hobby with me... as is looking into this new myth that "The Founders intended this country to be for Christians only!" (which drives me absolutely berserk, as you've unfortunately seen).
|
|
Sorry, Sebastian. I know I keep stepping on your toes here, and I actually feel bad about it. As a scientist and former science teacher, I have a big bee in my bonnet about scientific accuracy. Certainly no disrespect is intended.
No offense taken at all, I meant it when I said I appreciate the assist. If you've followed the thread for the last few pages you'll see that I'm constantly at a loss in my attempts to provide concrete data in response to creationist assertions, and I'm glad you're there filling in that gap.
I too am glad you're here. I have learned a whole lot in the last few "pages" and I appreciate the tone with which you have been educating me on this stuff. You have also done an excellent job giving specifics without getting bogged down with stuff that really doesn't matter. Don't apologize for correcting us -- if I'm wrong, I want to know.
|
|
Whew. I've seen your posts, and I don't want you mad at me!
I thought I read somewhere recently that Sebastian = blood sucking tick. Of course this is only a theory (unless we can do some comparative analysis in a lab and cross-reference the data with...)
... as is looking into this new myth that "The Founders intended this country to be for Christians only!" (which drives me absolutely berserk, as you've unfortunately seen).Where is this coming from?
The co-author of those "Left Behind" books, and a bunch of others, have been publishing all kinds of rot about how the separation of church and state is a "secular humanist myth," and how the Framers intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and how we need to go back to that or we'll all go to hell. A friend of mine has a grandson who just wrote a term paper on it. The problem with their ideas is that I've been reading letters written by Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al. and they don't bear this out at all.
I thought I read somewhere recently that Sebastian =blood sucking tick. Of course this is only a theory (unless we can do some comparative analysis in a lab and cross-reference the data with...)
I read that one, too, but then I realized he was a DIRE TICK, and I don't have the stats for that. So I can't use him in my game unless he's OGC.
|
|
The co-author of those "Left Behind" books, and a bunch of others, have been publishing all kinds of rot about how the separation of church and state is a "secular humanist myth," and how the Framers intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and how we need to go back to that or we'll all go to hell. A friend of mine has a grandson who just wrote a term paper on it. The problem with their ideas is that I've been reading letters written by Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al. and they don't bear this out at all.
Hadn't heard this yet. Thanks for the information. (I don't buy it either.)
Do you like/have you seen Eddie Izzard?
Do you like/have you seen Eddie Izzard?
He's my wife's favorite comedian. I like him OK, but I actually think he'd be funnier without the makeup. It's distracting, and it keeps me from focusing on his jokes.
I too am glad you're here.
Thanks, guys. Paizo is the only message board I post on, and if you click on "recent threads," you'll see this one's by far my favorite. Posting with you and Sebastian and Sir Kaikillah and Lady Aurora and the Jade and others is like talking with a bunch of friends over a beer, except there's no refreshments, and no need for a designated driver.
|
|
Do you like/have you seen Eddie Izzard?
He's my wife's favorite comedian. I like him OK, but I actually think he'd be funnier without the makeup. It's distracting, and it keeps me from focusing on his jokes.
In Dress to Kill, he talks about different "types" of transvestites -- he considers himself to be an "executive" transvestite and then there are f***in' weirdo transvestites.
There are some "Christians" that I feel that way about. This is truly the first time I have heard about this (maybe I'm just living in a cave). But what is the point? I have never heard that anyone became a Christian because they were told that they are going to hell. All this does is give people like me a bad name and it accomplishes NOTHING. And even if it were true (and I would have a REALLY hard time believing that) what does that have to do with now? America is not in the Bible. What difference does it make? Even if they believe it, why bring it up?
Two steps forward, three steps back.
Sorry, I'll stop venting now...
|
|
Paizo is the only message board I post on, and if you click on "recent threads," you'll see this one's by far my favorite. Posting with you and Sebastian and Sir Kaikillah and Lady Aurora and the Jade and others is like talking with a bunch of friends over a beer, except there's no refreshments, and no need for a designated driver.
Me too. And one of these days I hope to have a real beer with some of you -- Sebastian, I will be coming back out your way in a year or two. You up for it?
Me too. And one of these days I hope to have a real beer with some of you.
That'd be really nice. If you're ever in Houston, give me a "heads up."
There are some "Christians" that I feel that way about. I have never heard that anyone became a Christian because they were told that they are going to hell. All this does is give people like me a bad name and it accomplishes NOTHING. And even if it were true (and I would have a REALLY hard time believing that) what does that have to do with now? America is not in the Bible. What difference does it make? Even if they believe it, why bring it up?
Two steps forward, three steps back.
Sorry, I'll stop venting now...
Feel free to vent! It's every person's god-given right to grumble (the weird silent people who don't end up going on shooting sprees instead, unfortunately). I'm with you 100%.