As some of you may have noticed, not everyone agrees that wealth accumulation is just, or correlated to effort or ability in any meaningful way.
We get it, you disagree, but you must understand the position by now. It's tough not to conclude that the constant misrepresentation is willful. Please, just cut it out already.
|
As some of you may have noticed, not everyone agrees that wealth accumulation is just, or correlated to effort or ability in any meaningful way.
We get it, you disagree, but you must understand the position by now. It's tough not to conclude that the constant misrepresentation is willful. Please, just cut it out already.
Forgive me, but what constant misrepresentation are you referring to?
Just Curious!
Mazra
|
|
Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time.)The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
I really tried hard to ignore this comment. But I find this reaction very typical of many so-called learned people. That if others don't think or believe as you, then they must be ignorant or stupid. I accept concepts of natural selection and adaptation as being both scientific and factual. But those concepts are perfectly in line with intelligent design. What I have a problem with is the absolute denial by many evolutionist that the system is a part of a grander design. We are not here by accident. There is a purpose.
Later,
Mazra
Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time.)The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.I really tried hard to ignore this comment. But I find this reaction very typical of many so-called learned people. That if others don't think or believe as you, then they must be ignorant or stupid. I accept concepts of natural selection and adaptation as being both scientific and factual. But those concepts are perfectly in line with intelligent design. What I have a problem with is the absolute denial by many evolutionist that the system is a part of a grander design. We are not here by accident. There is a purpose.
Later,
Mazra
Allow me to propose an alternate hypothesis...ignorant people are ignorant.
Now back to our regularly scheduled vilification of intellect and knowledge.
As some of you may have noticed, not everyone agrees that wealth accumulation is just, or correlated to effort or ability in any meaningful way.
We get it, you disagree, but you must understand the position by now. It's tough not to conclude that the constant misrepresentation is willful. Please, just cut it out already.
Forgive me, but what constant misrepresentation are you referring to?
Just Curious!
Mazra
Liberals think stealing is a-ok, for one.
Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time.)The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.I really tried hard to ignore this comment. But I find this reaction very typical of many so-called learned people. That if others don't think or believe as you, then they must be ignorant or stupid. I accept concepts of natural selection and adaptation as being both scientific and factual. But those concepts are perfectly in line with intelligent design. What I have a problem with is the absolute denial by many evolutionist that the system is a part of a grander design. We are not here by accident. There is a purpose.
Later,
Mazra
You do realize what creationism is, right? It's just evolution with "god did it" plugging the holes in the data we have at the moment.
Believing in god doesn't preclude you from believing in evolution, and creationism IS just such a compromise, though one not founded on reason.
Your insisting there is a purpose does not make it so. Is it not better to live in a way that reflects your beliefs? Is it not better to believe things that are true? On a topic that cannot be deductively proven to be true or false (say, the existence of god) is it not better to believe in things that have a higher likelihood of being true based on observed patterns (i.e. science)?
Someone who says no to this is beyond my comprehension. Faith-based government is a bad idea. FAITH is a bad idea because it is the belief DISTINCTLY CONTRARY or at least disregarding observed patterns. Faith is the opposite of reason.
Petrie dish for evolution started. I'll weigh in with my own thoughts when awake.
|
|
Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time.)The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.I really tried hard to ignore this comment. But I find this reaction very typical of many so-called learned people. That if others don't think or believe as you, then they must be ignorant or stupid. I accept concepts of natural selection and adaptation as being both scientific and factual. But those concepts are perfectly in line with intelligent design. What I have a problem with is the absolute denial by many evolutionist that the system is a part of a grander design. We are not here by accident. There is a purpose.
Later,
Mazra
You do realize what creationism is, right? It's just evolution with "god did it" plugging the holes in the data we have at the moment.
Believing in god doesn't preclude you from believing in evolution, and creationism IS just such a compromise, though one not founded on reason.
Your insisting there is a purpose does not make it so. Is it not better to live in a way that reflects your beliefs? Is it not better to believe things that are true? On a topic that cannot be deductively proven to be true or false (say, the existence of god) is it not better to believe in things that have a higher likelihood of being true based on observed patterns (i.e. science)?
Someone who says no to this is beyond my comprehension. Faith-based government is a bad idea. FAITH is a bad idea because it is the belief DISTINCTLY CONTRARY or at least disregarding observed patterns. Faith is the opposite of reason.
How do you know that there is no God? What proof do you have that he does not exist? 13 Billion years ago or so the Universe came into existence. Poof!! Just showed up. How does anything exist at all unless there was a beginning? And how did the beginning of the universe start without something that put it all in motion? That created it! I am not asking you to believe in God. That is your choice. Ironically, part of God's purpose is not to fully reveal Himself to us. But for us to make a choice to come to Him. So it is true, you will likely not find God if you are looking for Him strictly through science. You will only find Him when you seek Him directly. But that is as a part of His plan and it is a matter of choice. And what proof do I have of this? He told some people about it, and left us a Book.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
Liberals think stealing is a-ok, for one.As some of you may have noticed, not everyone agrees that wealth accumulation is just, or correlated to effort or ability in any meaningful way.
We get it, you disagree, but you must understand the position by now. It's tough not to conclude that the constant misrepresentation is willful. Please, just cut it out already.
Forgive me, but what constant misrepresentation are you referring to?
Just Curious!
Mazra
Ahhh! Yeah. And in the guise of government and its police powers to confiscate the wealth of others at the point of a gun if need be.
Later,
Mazra
How do you know that there is no God? What proof do you have that he does not exist? 13 Billion years ago or so the Universe came into existence. Poof!! Just showed up. How does anything exist at all unless there was a beginning? And how did the beginning of the universe start without...
Thank you for not reading my post and completely misunderstanding my point.
It cannot be known whether god exists or not until he/she reveals him/herself.
|
|
How do you know that there is no God? What proof do you have that he does not exist? 13 Billion years ago or so the Universe came into existence. Poof!! Just showed up. How does anything exist at all unless there was a beginning? And how did the beginning of the universe start without...Thank you for not reading my post and completely misunderstanding my point.
It cannot be known whether god exists or not until he/she reveals him/herself.
Oh. I read your post. But maybe I did misunderstand your point. From your original post you say that creationism is such a compromise. There is no compromise in it. God either created the universe or He didn't. To me it is far more logical that He did.
You said that it is better to believe in something true (i. e. Science). Science in no way explains everything. However, an intelligent designer of it all does fill in a lot of the gaps that science misses. And the tone of your post indicated that God is not true. Well He is very True to me. You put God into the equation, things start making sense. You take Him out and none of it makes much sense. But if you want to continue to put your faith in man's paltry collection of knowledge, then that is your choice. For me, I believe there is a higher intelligence in the universe besides man.
Later,
Mazra
Unless Herman Cain is the messiah, I'm wondering how we got on the subject of god?
Leave and come back to an entirely different threat!
Best typo I've ever seen!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless Herman Cain is the messiah, I'm wondering how we got on the subject of god?
Maybe he is. Maybe he's just a very naughty boy.
But probably because some people on the Right love to talk about how America is a Christain country and how everyone should obey Christian rules and some people on the Left love to say that these people are the whole of the right and everyone who votes Republican wants theocracy. Both positions are a little or more nuts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a link to an article in the WSJ entitled "Why Can't Herman Cain Win?"
It was short, but a good read, and I recommend it. It pretty much sums up the attitude that I used to have about him. "I really like him a lot, but..." and that's probably the response that I think is most common amongst the Republican base. For some reason, there are a number of people who don't see him as very electable.
This is the primary reason that I think the straw poll really gave him a serious boost: it made a great many people in the base see him as a for-real, electable candidate. No, he doesn't have the financial resources of campaigns like Perry and Romney, but his staff reports that donations have been flooding in over the last week to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a day. Whether that's true or not is difficult to say, but I think it speaks volumes that the man even got to this point with as little money as he's had.
Even if he's had no legislative experience, I also think his business experience lends a great deal to the presidency. I mean, really. How is it NOT impressive that the man has risen to the top (or very near the top) of nearly every business pursuit he's had? He's worked ballistics for the Navy, then worked for Coca-Cola as an analyst, then went to Pillsbury, where he became VP within five or so years. When he went to Burger King, he took his region from the least profitable to the most profitable in just three years. He brought Godfather's Pizza back from the brink. He was CEO of the National Restaurant Association, then chairman of the Kansas Federal Reserve Bank, one step removed from chairman of the entire Federal Reserve. He's also a recipient of the Horatio Alger award, along with people like Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, and Clarence Thomas.
I think it's entirely logical to make the argument that of all the candidates, Cain has the MOST experience in bringing businesses back from the brink.
|
Since we seem to be getting back to Cain, one other thing his Florida win will do is make him a potential threat and thus a target. So far, he's been largely ignored by the front-runners. That may last a little longer, but if he continues gaining in the polls, it won't last forever. Then we'll get to seem some opponent research and see how he responds to attacks.
That is nothing but a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially when it rains, even just a little bit... *shudders*For that to work that 1% has to be really, really, really horrible.You ever driven in California? ;-)
I've driven in LA (my brother lives in Burbank) and it's impossible to know anyone's driving ability when the maximum speed one can attain on the 405 is about 10mph.
Greg
That is nothing but a good thing.Since we seem to be getting back to Cain, one other thing his Florida win will do is make him a potential threat and thus a target. So far, he's been largely ignored by the front-runners. That may last a little longer, but if he continues gaining in the polls, it won't last forever. Then we'll get to seem some opponent research and see how he responds to attacks.
Agreed. It'd be a lot better for him to get the experience responding to attacks or negative commentary now than in the national election, should he get that far.
I've driven in LA (my brother lives in Burbank) and it's impossible to know anyone's driving ability when the maximum speed one can attain on the 405 is about 10mph.Greg
This is why I'm glad I live in rural Georgia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really tried hard to ignore this comment. But I find this reaction very typical of many so-called learned people. That if others don't think or believe as you, then they must be ignorant or stupid. I accept concepts of natural selection and adaptation as being both scientific and factual. But those concepts are perfectly in line with intelligent design. What I have a problem with is the absolute denial by many evolutionist that the system is a part of a grander design. We are not here by accident. There is a purpose.
Mazra, your remarks put four very distinct viewpoints into a blender, and leave us with a cocktail that makes your meaning a muddled soup:
Until you demonstrate some slight knowledge of the topic at hand, my earlier remark stands.
What I believe:
1)God created everything.
2)Man did not evolve from apes, but they have evolved.
3)Evolution is real, and is evident and observable in nature.
None of these things conflict.
I really tried hard to ignore this comment. But I find this reaction very typical of many so-called learned people. That if others don't think or believe as you, then they must be ignorant or stupid. I accept concepts of natural selection and adaptation as being both scientific and factual. But those concepts are perfectly in line with intelligent design. What I have a problem with is the absolute denial by many evolutionist that the system is a part of a grander design. We are not here by accident. There is a purpose.Mazra, your remarks put four very distinct viewpoints into a blender, and leave us with a cocktail that makes your meaning a muddled soup:
Creationism: God created the Earth and all living things more or less in their current form. Evolution does NOT occur. This is usually, but not always, coupled with the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or so ("Young Earth Creationism").
Intelligent Design: As Creationism, but replace references to God with "A Designer." Also add assertions like "cells look like they were designed, so they must have been!" (which always makes me wonder who's in the sky designing individual snowflakes, too.)
Theistic Evolution: God created the Eath and put some single-celled organisms on it. Evolution then occurred exactly as biologists describe, with God guiding the process. This is the stance of the Catholic Church (as of John Paul II) and of most mainstream Protestant denominations. It is NOT "Creationism," and in fact is a specific denial of Creationism in favor of scientific evidence, while keeping God's importance in the fore.
Naturalistic Evolution: As Theistic Eviolution, but with the hypothesis included that no God was needed. Until you demonstrate some slight knowledge of the topic at hand, my earlier remark stands.
Its also important to note that the last of these is not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of god. The theory of evolution simply doesn't extend to the origins of life.
Its also important to note that the last of these is not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of god. The theory of evolution simply doesn't extend to the origins of life.
Naturalistic Evolution: As Theistic Eviolution, but with the hypothesis included that no God was needed.
Maybe not, but scientists have been able to create amino acids ("the building blocks of life") in an experimental environment.
This is not evolution, per se, but it certainly seems to imply that the "spark of life" does not required direct, divine intervention.
Greg
When they are able to do so without a lab or base materials by force of will alone, I'll re-think my position ;)
When they are able to do so without a lab or base materials by force of will alone, I'll re-think my position ;)
Saw the smilie, not sure if you meant it, but the point of the laboratory setup is to replicate the conditions of the primordial Earth. Not to create an artificial environment.
Again, not sure if I'm misreading you...
Greg
Its also important to note that the last of these is not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of god. The theory of evolution simply doesn't extend to the origins of life.
Naturalistic Evolution: As Theistic Eviolution, but with the hypothesis included that no God was needed. Maybe not, but scientists have been able to create amino acids ("the building blocks of life") in an experimental environment.
This is not evolution, per se, but it certainly seems to imply that the "spark of life" does not required direct, divine intervention.
Greg
Certainly. I think its just worth while confirming that accepting naturalistic evolution does not necessarily require one to be an atheist. Its at the heart of the conflict on the issue.
|
|
Certainly. I think its just worth while confirming that accepting naturalistic evolution does not necessarily require one to be an atheist. Its at the heart of the conflict on the issue.Its also important to note that the last of these is not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of god. The theory of evolution simply doesn't extend to the origins of life.
Naturalistic Evolution: As Theistic Eviolution, but with the hypothesis included that no God was needed. Maybe not, but scientists have been able to create amino acids ("the building blocks of life") in an experimental environment.
This is not evolution, per se, but it certainly seems to imply that the "spark of life" does not required direct, divine intervention.
Greg
It absolutely does not, unless the Pope is an atheist. But it does conflict with a very literal reading of Genesis which some people insist is necessary to be a Christian.
Certainly. I think its just worth while confirming that accepting naturalistic evolution does not necessarily require one to be an atheist. Its at the heart of the conflict on the issue.
Absolutely. I was brought up strict Catholic (don't ask how that turned out...) and went to Catholic grade and high school. Never heard a word about creationism at all, only evolution in my biology classes and even the nuns taught us that Genesis was an allegory, not verbatim true.
So, no you don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution.
Greg
[edit: ninja'd by Paul]
When they are able to do so without a lab or base materials by force of will alone, I'll re-think my position ;)Saw the smilie, not sure if you meant it, but the point of the laboratory setup is to replicate the conditions of the primordial Earth. Not to create an artificial environment.
Again, not sure if I'm misreading you...
Greg
I meant it. I know what the experiment was for, and it's cool we can do that.
It was more in response to this:
This is not evolution, per se, but it certainly seems to imply that the "spark of life" does not required direct, divine intervention.
I don't believe it implies that at all, as they did not create the amino acids out of thin...well nothing. It implies at the most that it works as intended, either by a Creator or by natural law.
It absolutely does not, unless the Pope is an atheist.
Well, there are protestant groups that don't consider Catholics as "real Christians." (In fact, some consider the Pope the anti-Christ, IIRC.)
Greg
I meant it. I know what the experiment was for, and it's cool we can do that.
K. Just wanted to be sure..
Greg
Certainly. I think its just worth while confirming that accepting naturalistic evolution does not necessarily require one to be an atheist. Its at the heart of the conflict on the issue.Absolutely. I was brought up strict Catholic (don't ask how that turned out...) and went to Catholic grade and high school. Never heard a word about creationism at all, only evolution in my biology classes and even the nuns taught us that Genesis was an allegory, not verbatim true.
So, no you don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution.
Greg
[edit: ninja'd by Paul]
wow. That's weird (nuns re: genesis as an allegory in a Catholic school). That said, what about this Herman Cain character?
Political threads are easliy taken off topic, I've noticed :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is the best argument I've seen in favor of the U.S. Department of Education in a good, long while. :(
|
|
Well, there's always Jeanine Garofalo's position, wherein she argues that the inherently racist Tea Party can't stand to have a black man as President, so they are supporting Hermain Cain for president so that they can continue to be racist without appearing racist and get the hated black man out of office by electing a black man.
That's certainly an unusual perspective.
wow. That's weird (nuns re: genesis as an allegory in a Catholic school).
Not really. If the Pope accepts evolution, then something has to give re: Genesis.
(Ok, I'm done now.. back to the Republican primaries....)
Greg
Jeanine Garofalo is the left's Anne Coulter.
That's all that really needs be said.
Except that The Truth About Cats and Dogs was pretty cute.
The Matchmaker was hilarious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is the best argument I've seen in favor of the U.S. Department of Education in a good, long while. :(
Really, that runs counter to logical thought as the arguments here are made by people who were educated under a system run by the US Dep. of Ed.(at least, those of us under 30) if anything, isn't this thread proof of said institutions failure?
The Matchmaker was hilarious.
I absolutely love the "Lethal Weapon" movies. And Payback, and The Road Warrior, and even Hamlet. I still think Mel Gibson is a violently deranged loon, and I wouldn't let him within 1,000 yards of my home if I could help it, but he does make entertaining movies.
This thread is the best argument I've seen in favor of the U.S. Department of Education in a good, long while. :(Really, that runs counter to logical thought as the arguments here are made by people who were educated under a system run by the US Dep. of Ed.(at least, those of us under 30) if anything, isn't this thread proof of said institutions failure?
That's actually a valid (and thoroughly depressing) point. I should have gone with my original thought, which was "funding for higher education."
That doesn't in any way imply that the answer is eliminating the dept, however.
Really, that runs counter to logical thought as the arguments here are made by people who were educated under a system run by the US Dep. of Ed.(at least, those of us under 30) if anything, isn't this thread proof of said institutions failure?
Sure, it's a failure, but it's hopefully better than no education at all (or mandatory homeschooling, as Bachmann would prefer). I would want to see it totally overhauled, without question. I would not want to see it totally disbanded, and not replaced. See the difference?
|
|
This thread is the best argument I've seen in favor of the U.S. Department of Education in a good, long while. :(Really, that runs counter to logical thought as the arguments here are made by people who were educated under a system run by the US Dep. of Ed.(at least, those of us under 30) if anything, isn't this thread proof of said institutions failure?
How dare you?! I was educated by the British Educatinal System, sir. And don't you forget it.
How dare you?! I was educated by the British Educational System, sir. And don't you forget it.
FTFY.