|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 09 2013 05:56 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. Under what context would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid?...and just what on earth is your occupation?
Are you repeating the same question I just answered? If you're looking for me to elaborate ask a new question, don't just change one word.
On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful.
I'm talking about personal beliefs and people respecting them. Not religion or "alternative science" acting as a replacement.
|
On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it.
News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity.
|
On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity.
maybe i worded it poorly. You are not only not objectiv, but incredible biased to a totally not scientific "theory". You are probably on of the least objectiv people on that matter.
Its exactly the bad subjectivity u are mentioned.
|
On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity.
NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so.
On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash.
|
On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash.
Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it.
There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay.
Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further.
|
On May 09 2013 06:43 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. maybe i worded it poorly. You are not only not objectiv, but incredible biased to a totally not scientific "theory". You are probably on of the least objectiv people on that matter. Its exactly the bad subjectivity u are mentioned.
But you can't just tell someone "you're wrong and anything you study will be wrong" based on the premise that they believe God created the earth. I'm personally no fan of religion and perpetuating falsehoods but I can't tell someone not to believe what they want to believe, I can just repeatedly show them science and logic to help guide them to realistic conclusions.
It's actually a GOOD thing to have religious scientists trying to disprove evolution. Since we all have inherent confirmation bias, we typically seek to confirm our hypotheses, and so having a group try to disprove it helps in the process of affirming and reaffirming the theory of evolution (as it has consistently stood up to opposition). It helps the theory stand up if there is constant competing hypotheses being dismissed. Like someone else said, the market place of ideas helps science grow not just one groups opinions and tests on a subject.
|
On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay.Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further.
Terrible comparison.
Being gay doesnt say anything about your scientfic credibility.
Believing in Young Earth Creation does, because it shows your inabiltiy to evaluate scientific facts on an
reasonable level. Obviously you dont deserve to be completly igonred/called wrong without any reason, but you deserve the criticsm.
|
On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration.
Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country.
Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me 
|
On May 09 2013 07:35 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay.Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further. Terrible comparison. Being gay doesnt say anything about your scientfic credibility. Believing in Young Earth Creation does, because it shows your inabiltiy to evaluate scientific facts on an reasonable level. Obviously you dont deserve to be completly igonred/called wrong without any reason, but you deserve the criticsm.
Of course it doesn't, and neither does believing something that has nothing to do with your research or expertise.
|
On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay. Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further.
The fact you think being gay and being a creationist are somehow analogous to comparison I believe discredits you from a reasonable discussion..
|
Lets try a fun exercise.
What do you think "believing in creationalism" means in practice? Because unless we get this term defined correctly its impossible to continue this debate.
Like specifically where does the theory of creationalism, in practice, separate for you from the theory of evolution?
|
On May 09 2013 08:01 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay. Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further. The fact you think being gay and being a creationist are somehow analogous to comparison I believe discredits you from a reasonable discussion..
Well thank Jesus Christ the Unicorn that Hitchens acolytes are not the arbiters of acceptable discussion.
|
United States43814 Posts
On May 09 2013 08:06 Sermokala wrote:
Lets try a fun exercise.
What do you think "believing in creationalism" means in practice? Because unless we get this term defined correctly its impossible to continue this debate.
It comes in various brands.
There is the idea of the prime mover, that something cannot come from nothing and therefore there must have been some creator back when it all began. However what we're talking about here is biblical literalism in which the genealogy in the bible is a factual account of the historical figures, along with their ages, and can be used to calculate how long ago God created earth, roughly 7000 years ago. This is a belief which is demonstrably false, comparable to claiming that whales are a type of fish.
|
On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me
This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country.
Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work.
I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial.
|
United States43814 Posts
On May 09 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:01 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:
[quote]
Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay. Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further. The fact you think being gay and being a creationist are somehow analogous to comparison I believe discredits you from a reasonable discussion.. Well thank Jesus Christ the Unicorn that Hitchens acolytes are not the arbiters of acceptable discussion.
A belief is a set of ideas one chooses to hold which can be judged on their merits and accuracy. This judgement gives us feedback about how good the holder of the belief is at picking accurate ideas. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, it tells us the gender the homosexual is attracted to. It's not a great comparison farva.
|
|
|
On May 09 2013 08:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 08:01 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay. Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further. The fact you think being gay and being a creationist are somehow analogous to comparison I believe discredits you from a reasonable discussion.. Well thank Jesus Christ the Unicorn that Hitchens acolytes are not the arbiters of acceptable discussion. A belief is a set of ideas one chooses to hold which can be judged on their merits and accuracy. This judgement gives us feedback about how good the holder of the belief is at picking accurate ideas. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, it tells us the gender the homosexual is attracted to. It's not a great comparison farva.
Except for the fact that those "merits and accuracy" usually have no relation to the field they are experts in. That's the comparison. I make it because it is shocking, and the idea that it plays a larger role in their legitimacy in a profession is nonsense, in much the same way taking somebody's sexuality to the same extent. And I can guarantee you that scientists have been marginalized because of their sexual preference, in much the same way people in this topic speak of doing so with people who believe in some form of "creationism."
|
On May 09 2013 08:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 08:01 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay. Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further. The fact you think being gay and being a creationist are somehow analogous to comparison I believe discredits you from a reasonable discussion.. Well thank Jesus Christ the Unicorn that Hitchens acolytes are not the arbiters of acceptable discussion. A belief is a set of ideas one chooses to hold which can be judged on their merits and accuracy. This judgement gives us feedback about how good the holder of the belief is at picking accurate ideas. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, it tells us the gender the homosexual is attracted to. It's not a great comparison farva.
While there certainly are more apt comparisons, I think it can be argued that belief systems are distinct from rationalities in that that they oftentimes hinge upon a degree of "inheritance" a la ones upbringing. I can tell you firsthand that there are a great many incredibly rational people who are never able to quite shake the formal genealogy of their belief system. This inner conflict in no way necessarily infringes on their ability to perform "objective" functions like that of science. While it isn't quite a sexual preference, there are similarities.
|
On May 09 2013 08:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:06 Sermokala wrote:
Lets try a fun exercise.
What do you think "believing in creationalism" means in practice? Because unless we get this term defined correctly its impossible to continue this debate. It comes in various brands. There is the idea of the prime mover, that something cannot come from nothing and therefore there must have been some creator back when it all began. However what we're talking about here is biblical literalism in which the genealogy in the bible is a factual account of the historical figures, along with their ages, and can be used to calculate how long ago God created earth, roughly 7000 years ago. This is a belief which is demonstrably false, comparable to claiming that whales are a type of fish.
Ok so this brand of creationalism isn't the one thats followed by all those scientists that study in the evolutionary fields. Creationalism is primarily about how god created the universe, how he did that is what is debated throughout the church.
Just because you profess to a belief shouldn't mean that you get demonized as the lowest common denominator of that belief. its quite bigoted to portray every muslum as a terrorist as its the same to portray everyone who believes in creationalism as a young earth literalist.
|
United States43814 Posts
On May 09 2013 08:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:12 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2013 08:06 Sermokala wrote:
Lets try a fun exercise.
What do you think "believing in creationalism" means in practice? Because unless we get this term defined correctly its impossible to continue this debate. It comes in various brands. There is the idea of the prime mover, that something cannot come from nothing and therefore there must have been some creator back when it all began. However what we're talking about here is biblical literalism in which the genealogy in the bible is a factual account of the historical figures, along with their ages, and can be used to calculate how long ago God created earth, roughly 7000 years ago. This is a belief which is demonstrably false, comparable to claiming that whales are a type of fish. Ok so this brand of creationalism isn't the one thats followed by all those scientists that study in the evolutionary fields. Creationalism is primarily about how god created the universe, how he did that is what is debated throughout the church. Just because you profess to a belief shouldn't mean that you get demonized as the lowest common denominator of that belief. its quite bigoted to portray every muslum as a terrorist as its the same to portray everyone who believes in creationalism as a young earth literalist.
Nobody here is being bigoted. We're not talking about young earth creationism because we want to portray christians as dumb, we're talking about it because the post that started this digression is this one
On May 07 2013 14:44 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 05:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2013 05:11 Paljas wrote:
wtf 6% believe in Unicorns? Unless they also asked little kids, this is absolutly mind boggling.
In my opinion, this is also partly due to the education system not being centralized by the state.
I really think a uniform education system across a whole nation is superior to a regional system. I doubt 6% really believe in unicorns. Believing in unicorns isn't really that much stupider (if at all) than believing in Young Earth creationism. Considering that 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism, I don't think 6% believing in unicorns is much of a stretch.
which specifically states Young Earth creationism as the topic. We're not grouping all people who believe in a God with Young Earth creationists, we're talking about Young Earth creationists and you're then grouping them with other christians who don't believe that and asking why we're hating on the other christians who don't believe that when we're not and never were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
