Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#21816 05/27/07 04:37 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
A New Museum states, Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.

The Christian creators of a $27 million sprawling museum near Cincinnati that opened Saturday, drew snickers from the media and condemnation from U.S. scientists, and even moderate Christians who believe God.

The Museum states that "we have given people an opportunity to hear information that is not readily available .....That the Bibles first book, Genesis, is the literal truth. In that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days about 6,000 years ago"

Here exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah's flood, Dinosaurs coexisted with humans, and had a place on Noah's Ark, and that Cain married his sister to people the earth,....among other Biblical wonders.

Scientists, secularists and moderate Christians have pledged to protest the museum's public opening this Monday. An airplane trailing a "Thou Shalt Not Lie" banner buzzed overhead during the museum's opening news conference.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUKN2621240720070526

Thoughts***
A Museum, is a building for exhibiting natural historic objects.
Clearly, this should not be called a Museum.
I also believe that, unfortunately, it will weaken Christianity, in the long term.





.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
On page 2 of the article there is the information that 50% of Americans believe that humans were created by God some time in the last 10,000 years.

Can this be true? How could this have happened? Other countries/people do not believe this, and most christians seem to be able to reconcile the idea of gradual growth and change (ie evolution) with their faith. Why can't Americans?

This isn't a museum, it's Fantasy Island and Love Boat all in one!!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, Ellis, I've seen the figure of 50% on a couple of websites, and I think (though I'm not certain) that it was also quoted by Prof. Steven Pinker (cognitive scientist, Harvard). I'll try to check it out. Maybe people will begin to understand the reaction of scientists and educationists. Do you suppose they might be concerned about the potential of unreason to undermine American civilization? Well, it's already happening, apparently with the implicit support of the President.

"The museum...has been set up by Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist"

"'Since President Bush's re-election we have been getting more membership applications than we can handle,' said Mr Ham"

Creation Museum walkthrough:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/

"T. rex — the real king of the beasts. That’s the terror that Adam’s sin unleashed! You’ll run into this monster lurking near Adam and Eve. How’s this possible? Find out soon!"

"Everywhere you turn, science confirms the biblical account!"
_____________________

Religious brainwashing in the classroom, by the selective teaching of half truths, and the careful omission of overwhelming evidence, is probably rampant:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

"As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking."


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Ellis,

I really wonder about these surveys. I'd sure like to know the exact question. Sadly, much of the general population has a very poor working knowledge of history or even a timeline that places events in correct order. I've observed a common paradigm in people who don't highly value education. They think history started back in the early 18- or 1900's. Anything before that, was thousands or millions of years ago ("back in the Flintstone age"). They often don't distinguish between 'thousands' or 'millions' and even 'billions' of years ago.

My wife and I call these people Jay-walkers (after the Jay Leno bit where he asks questions of people on the street). He gets answers such as, 'Jesus was born in 1835,' or 'Jesus was born 50 million years ago. The same answers come for questions about the Civil War, the Roman Empire, or George Washington.
I find that if you take enough time, and ask the right questions, sometimes you can get a more reasonable response. Still not very encouraging....

I just saw one of those "50% surveys" last night (video of evolution lecture), I'll see if there's a reference.
=

"Do you suppose they might be concerned about the potential of unreason to undermine American civilization?" -redewenur

I sure hope they're concerned, I know I am!

Rede, that second link was scary.
It was so logical that it almost had me converted!

Those other teachers need to give the kids better debating/logic skills. More on that link later, maybe. wink

smile
~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
We've all ignored the BIG HUGE question. Do the Adam and Eve figures have navels??

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis, you might like to read this:

"Trouble in the Garden"
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/eden.html

It's a cynical but humorous retort to creationism.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Great site Rede--Thanks.

The tummy button question remains unanswered, but apparently one of these famous dinosaurs has a saddle!!!!! I am, I must admit, still a bit sceptical of this fact, reported on the TV news at the opening.

It's caused bewildered attention here in Oz as the guy who designed it (or planned it or something ) is an Aussie. Here he could never have built such a thing, but we do have a lot of very BIG THINGS---like the Big Banana, the Big Merino, (a sheep), the Big Lobster, the Big Pineapple and my favourite the Big Ned Kelly, who is a famous (and evidently, enormous, 19thC bank robber), so maybe that is where he got the idea!! These strange objects are surprisingly popular, and often the sole tourist attraction of an area, so maybe it is the same with the Creation Museum!? After all the dinosaurs are BIG.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I agree with Samwik. Those links of Redewenur's are frightening.

I wonder how Noah got all those dinosaurs onto his ark. Even their eggs would be pretty large. I think the best tesponse to the museum is to laugh at it.

Regarding statues in Oz: I like the poem that inspired the dog and the tuckerbox five, or is in nine, miles from Gundagai. Not a bigger than life statue though.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Ellis
...still a bit sceptical of this fact, reported on the TV news at the opening.

I'm not sure what "fact" you're talking about, but I'm hoping it is still this one from above....

Disbelief in Evolution:

Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?

Have =49% ; Not Sure =6% ; Have Not = 45%

Harris Poll; June 2005; N=1000 Adults

Video of a poster in an HHMI lecture.


See, I just think that's a poorly worded question.
Who commissioned this poll?
Who wrote the question?
Did they have to use the word "believe?"

If I was a jay-walker, I'd say "Hey, I don't think plants AND animals evolved from another species!"

There is this Harris poll also:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061031235233.s0l4o4wy&show_article=1

...The survey conducted by Harris Poll found that 42 percent of US adults are not "absolutely certain" there is a God compared to 34 percent who felt that way when asked the same question three years ago.
....As to whether God controls events on Earth, 29 percent believe that to be the case while 44 percent said God "observes but does not control what happens on Earth".

...also...
Among the various religious groups, 76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Jews said they are "absolutely certain" there is a God while 93 percent of Christians who describe themselves as "Born Again" feel certain God exists.

When questioned on whether God is male or female, 36 percent of respondents said they think God is male, 37 percent said neither male nor female and 10 percent said "both male and female."
Only one percent think of God as a female....

...well, it's nice to be special!

The survey was conducted online between October 4 and 10 among 2,010 US adults.

That evolution poll [N = 1000 Adults] sounds like a land-line survey {...in one state; nationwide?}.
That'd be a very different population than an online survey, I'd think.
...to say the least!

What's the deal with surveys? ...sounds like a new topic....

grin
~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
I agree.... Those links of Redewenur's are frightening.
Hiya Terry,

I was serious about that too. That site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
is using very sophisticated techniques to sneak their "logic" into the zeitgeist.

...usually I avoid writing about politics, but as an example.... wink

I was immediately reminded of the recent (10yr.+) Rovian political techniques of organizing, using systematized data mining, targeting, etc., and co-opting various media and focusing the debate on gay, flag-burning, married stem cells.

Again, do they teach logic, propaganda, and/or debating skills anymore in the public schools?

confused
~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Rede's site was interesting as well as scary. The sheer determination to prove the unprovable and the complete disregard for any other point of view is what I find most unsettling, indeed repugnant is not too strong a word. There is such contempt and arrogance in the whole tone.

Why is this whole theory so successful and taken so seriously in the US when it hardly raises a ripple elsewhere? Is there something in that society that encourages it? I mean to say, the whole museum thing is very silly-- and we should not be making a big serious deal of it as it really doesn't warrant so much attention, does it?

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
I imagine the museum's main purpose is to justify the donations that I'm sure have been made. I'd also guess that a huge majority of its patrons will not need any more convincing.

Though if I were a teacher, I could see that field trip as a great opportunity to do some teaching. wink

~SA

p.s. or maybe it's more like a re-education center for those with doubts?

Last edited by samwik; 05/30/07 07:36 AM.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Ellis

Why is this whole theory so successful and taken so seriously in the US when it hardly raises a ripple elsewhere? Is there something in that society that encourages it?


For a quick answer [my thoughts on this are] people are scared and tired of change. Look at the news, look at TV (CSI mayhem: SVU), look at the jobs, look at the future.

Fundemental religion is the simplist, all-encompassing answer; and it maintains the status quo. It is a comfortable, insulating, turning inwards.

I guess it's the same reason fundementalism is rising on the other side. Hmmmm, well probably at least some parallels.

~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis: "Why is this whole theory so successful and taken so seriously in the US when it hardly raises a ripple elsewhere?"

Remarkable isn't it?

There's a fairly new cult that's been introduced to Thailand. It has a large number of followers from the middle branches of the education tree - especially teachers. Rank and status is achieved by a kind of pyramid sales scheme - if you can recruit a number a people, then you are promoted. If your own recruits recruit yet more people, you are promoted further, and so on. If you achieve a certain rank, then you are allowed the privilege of having in your house a special shrine - which would otherwise be forbidden. This religion, supposedly based on Buddhism, is said to have been founded by a Japanese man who is now virtually deified.

Well, there's nothing of particular interest in all that. If there's one such cult then there are probably dozens. A point that is of outstanding interest is the location of the cult's headquarters. I predicted to an acquaintance, who happens to be a member, that they would find it to be California. When they found that to be true, they marvelled at my clairvoyance! Alas, clairvoyance had nothing to do with it.
______

Ellis: "I mean to say, the whole museum thing is very silly-- and we should not be making a big serious deal of it as it really doesn't warrant so much attention, does it?"

In other circumstances, it could be viewed as a quaint and picturesque symbol of harmless nuttiness. In todays USA, it appears to be far more than that. The fears expressed, in the posts above, are well founded.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Maybe th comparisons of th US to the Roman Empire was not so farfetches afterall, and we are experiencing the resulys of unchecked power as in the times of the

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I pressed the wrong button and obviously had not finished typing. It's probably a silly idea but the comparison of the US with the Roman Empire was popular a few years ago, and the later decay of tthe Romans in the 1st century was resonsible for some remarkable stories of excess and downright craziness! There was a rescue of sorts, and the Pax Romana followed, but such individual power must inevitably be lost. Maybe this is the result of decay, misuse of power and the despair that samwik mentions.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis: "It's probably a silly idea but..."

There's nothing silly about it, but it's difficult to argue the case.

"The many-sidedness of a society and civilization like the Greco-Roman and the perplexing breadth of the issues raised by its disappearance give great range for personal interpretation." From: "History and the Fall of Rome" by R. F. Arragon

Which underlines why it's not always easy to learn from history.

Anyway, in the case of Rome, here are some proposed contributory factors:

- Over expansion and dilution by foreign cultures
- Economic unsustainability: trade deficit, hoarding of bullion, looting by barbarians.
- Disownment and isolation of Roman communities in foreign lands (Britain, for example), due to the above.
- Religious controversy (already)
- Vandals
- Division of the Empire into east and west
- Lead poisoning (already)

See this link for details: http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm

Due to the complexities, I guess we should try to view the present situation within its particular context. It may be complex, but we do know a great deal more about it.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
And here's what happened in NZ recently. A protest (by three thousand people) against religious tolerance. Protest by Christian groups of course:

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNews/tabid/184/articleID/27923/Default.aspx

Ellis wrote:

"the comparison of the US with the Roman Empire was popular a few years ago"

It's still nice to call the US president George W. Caesar. As Redewenur points out there are many similarities.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Anyway, in the case of Rome, here are some proposed contributory factors:

- Over expansion and dilution by foreign cultures
- Economic unsustainability: trade deficit, hoarding of bullion, looting by barbarians.
- Disownment and isolation of Roman communities in foreign lands (Britain, for example), due to the above.
- Religious controversy (already)
- Vandals
- Division of the Empire into east and west
- Lead poisoning (already)
I ran across a little info. re: parallels with US and Romans.

Roman Empire parallel: They eventually outsourced their military to Visagoths, Vandals, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc., as well as using private armies. ...Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc....



Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Originally Posted By: samwik
I imagine the museum's main purpose is to justify the donations that I'm sure have been made. I'd also guess that a huge majority of its patrons will not need any more convincing.


I'm sure most will not need convincing, but I intend to make a little pilgramage there, myself. I generally try to see any campy, roadside attraction that I pass. I've been to the Corn Palace, Wall Drug, Carhenge, and others. My inlaws live in the SW corner of Ohio, so I MUST SEE THE CREATION MUSEUM next time I go there. My parents-in-law are both Bible thumpers, so they might join me.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
(snip) It's still nice to call the US president George W. Caesar.


Yeah, but where's Brutus when you need him? crazy


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Soilguy. The trouble with the Brutus solution is that it didn't really improve the situation. I found this at Yahoo when I was checking my emails:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_religion

Seems any replacement for G. W. Caesar is going to have to prove they're devout Christian. Therefore the problem isn't going to be solved anytime soon.

Look forward to your comments re visit to museum. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'd love to go.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Re. the Yahoo comment:
I understand that this of mine comment is probably very cynical, but how on earth would her "faith" have helped Mrs Clinton through the trauma caused by her husband's infidelity? I always thought she showed great pragmatism, after all the Team Clinton is much more powerful politically than each of them individually and there may have been a private accommodation between them regarding such behaviour, we don't know. She must have been very very angry when it all went extremely pear-shaped, through his inability to behave with any discretion. But, really, what could God do? I'm not saying she's not devout-- I don't know anything about it, but really, I think practical politics helped her more than God in this one.

I suppose she could have prayed for strength, but she seems to me to be a woman of great personal strength of character and intellect- certainly enough to deal with a wandering husband, even one as charming, and catastrophic, as Mr Clinton.

The need to ally oneself to a Christian foundation is truly amazing. What would happen if a politician in the US would, as do politicians elsewhere, say that they do not subscribe to any religious belief? Are they really all so devout? Do only Christians stand for Parliament in the US?

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
In the US, to say that one does not subscribe to any religious belief is tantamount to political suicide. It is better to have faith, and the implication that one is guided by a higher power is acceptable to many of the more fundamentalist groups. Even if you do not ascribe to their flavor of religion, you'd better at least have some kind of religion if you want to get elected to high office. There are an awful lot of people who actually believe that "under god" is one of the founding tenets of this land. It's on our money, so it must be true.

It's sick, but it's true. The person who gets elected is the one whom the most sheep will follow, and most of the sheep consider themselves to have some form of religion, so they expect some in their leaders. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and I think there are people who see that as preferable to atheism or nontheism.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Rose wrote:

"It is better to have faith".

A Muslim for president, anyone?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Terry: "Seems any replacement for G. W. Caesar is going to have to prove they're devout Christian. Therefore the problem isn't going to be solved anytime soon"

Ellis: "The need to ally oneself to a Christian foundation is truly amazing"

Amaranth: "It's sick, but it's true. The person who gets elected is the one whom the most sheep will follow, and most of the sheep consider themselves to have some form of religion"
____

May 27, 2007

"But one of the starkest recent displays of creationism's popularity came during a recent debate between the 10 Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination. The candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Three proudly raised their hands."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2089322,00.html


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490

"But one of the starkest recent displays of creationism's popularity came during a recent debate between the 10 Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination. The candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Three proudly raised their hands."

GULP!

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
"Three proudly raised their hands."

Are the others still candidates or have they now been dropped as having no show?

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Ellis
It's probably a silly idea but the comparison of the US with the Roman Empire was popular a few years ago, and the later decay of tthe Romans in the 1st century was resonsible for some remarkable stories of excess and downright craziness! There was a rescue of sorts, and the Pax Romana followed, but such individual power must inevitably be lost. Maybe this is the result of decay, misuse of power and the despair that samwik mentions.


Ellis,
fyi: the 6/7 Colbert Report has an interview with author Cullen Murphy discussing the parallels (Haliburton mentioned re: Barbarians (not Vandals though).

Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America
by Cullen Murphy

~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
It's happened so quickly too. The Romans had 4/500 years whereas the US has had perhaps 50, or less if you count from the fall of the Soviets. Why? Are the foundations shifting, and/or too flimsy to support the top heavy oligarchy?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis: "It's happened so quickly too."

The patient is sick, but I don't think the condition is critical. At least, I hope it isn't. The US still has the ingredients of a great civilization with a long and healthy future, but this is my personal view:

The danger isn't in belief in God, nor even in many aspects of 'good' religion - there may be an important place for ritual, and there are ethical values that are beyond reproach, be they within or without religion.

The danger is in dogma that is taken to be absolute, unquestionable and immutable truth. It's religious dogma, together with a corresponding politics that is derived from the same mental processes, that have the potential to stagnate American civilization, and could ultimately lead to its death.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe." - Hippocrates

Today, Hippocrates might ask “Why, now that you understand the causes of many things in the universe, are there so many who look away, and cling tenaciously to delusion?”

Quote from Ann Druyan http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1998/jan_feb98/druyan.html

“Our kids don't have a dream of the future anymore. It's been a long time since we've had one. You ask yourself, well, why would they want to be scientists when everything in their society is telling them you've just got to believe, and it will be true. We haven't had a national political leader in a very long time who was even comfortable with the language and the methods of science.”

She actually said that in Dec 1997. Now, ten years on...


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Thanks Rede. From her speech:

"That's why science is so subversive, so much more subversive than any other methodology that I've ever come across."

Perhaps that's why the powers that be in some countries are so afraid of it.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
I'm sure of it. Abdus Salam (Nobel Prize for Physics, 1979, died 1996) found this during his stay in Egypt, where he attempted, unsuccessfully, to raise the status of science in universities.

What, exactly, is the basis of the fear? Is it the threat of political and social destabilisation? Political religion is a powerful tool for social manipulation even in Thailand, where I think it has little to do with dogma - but that's another story.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Power- it has to do with power. In countries that are religious by decree the power is held by those who profess and administer belief. Science is, by its nature, open to all. For many of those in power science is hard to understand, and they are not in sole charge of any part of it. They are really really scared of something they do not understand and cannot control. Especially they cannot control the outcome---how scary is that for a control freak?!

And what a threat to everything they perceive as stability.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Yes. I remember some time ago comments regarding why Darwin took so long to release his idea of continuous evolution. It wasn't because he was afraid of offending his wife, or anybody else. It was because he realised if his theory was true there was no fixed order. This would give ammunition to those who had demanded change during the riots of 1848. And, of course, he belonged to the priviledged class. He was potentially going to suffer the consequences of having his theory widely accepted.

And there's the story of the Bishop's wife who said when she first heard the idea, "Let's hope it's not true, and if it is true, let's hope the lower classes don't hear of it".

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
LOL Terry,
That does sound more probable than the romantic story of concern for his wife (or maybe, in addition to...).

So, ...fear for his lifstyle.
...and fear of reprisal from the priviledged class itself, who like the Bishop's wife, could see the implications.

Later, (I have epigenetics homework to catch up on. wink )
~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
why would you not like Bush? he is your leader, firm in his beleifs, and ELECTED <focus on the latter.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Tim
why would you not like Bush? he is your leader, firm in his beliefs, and ELECTED <focus on the latter.

I expect you've noticed that he's not a 'science friendly' president; but taking a balanced view, we can see that concerns about science in the US did not begin with Bush. I think the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993 was a landmark in the decline of American science. At that time, the projected total cost was $12 billion. Nearly $2 billion had already been spent. 23.5 km of tunnel, and 17 shafts to the surface had already been dug. President Clinton attempted to prevent the cancellation by requesting that Congress continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science..." . I think that's exactly what it did signal.

That's all that's relevant to the thread, but it doesn't fully answer your question.

"ELECTED". Yes, incredible isn't it. Still, everyone makes mistakes, and in that case, half of America did. I remember watching the televised election campaign with a sense of foreboding as I read his warmonger character. I kid you not - I felt it.

The purpose of a democratic election is to allow people to choose the person and the political party they think will best serve their interests. It doesn't mean that they must blindly, mindlessly, and without protest, accept whatever that person and party choose to do.

There may be a host of reasons for his domestic unpopularity, but as a non-American, I can tell you that the foreign policies of his administration are extremely unpopular. He is widely seen, particularly in Britain, as a very dangerous man who has resorted to genocidal means***, purportedly to create a "new world order" and to give people a better way of life!!! - and all with full confidence that God is on his side. Yes, Tim, I guess he is firm in his beliefs/delusions. It's so desgustingly grotesque. The WMD argument, having failed, has been replaced by the ludicrous "world democracy" argument. Remember Vietnam?

He's not my leader but, as long we had Blair, who would have known?

*** see: Iraq War Results & Statistics as of June 3, 2007 http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

Possibly 600,000+ dead, and possibly 5 to 10 times as many maimed.

Spent & Approved War-Spending - Over $600 billion of US taxpayers' funds. President Bush is expected to request another $140 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $750 billion.

So, Tim, I hope that answers your question. That's why I "would not like Bush", even though he's not (really) my leader, especially since he's "firm in his beliefs", and even though he was "ELECTED".


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Mr Bush is not my 'leader'. My leader likes him, but Mr Bush is not generally well liked in Australia. He is regarded as a bit of a clown, to be honest. I feel this is a dangerous underestimation, though he does not seem to be intellectually acute in most of the TV reporting here. I am sure he must be cleverer in fact. The Iraq War is not popular. The reasons for going there are not widely perceived as truthful. My leader too was elected twice and I am still amazed at both election results.

Sometimes the democratic system as practised in states with a 2 party preferred policy can ensure that the various shades of public opinion can be ignored for most of the time, and only be considered at election time- to disappear again for a few years. Easier to govern, but not truly democratic.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Tim. People with pots of dough can spend enough of it to convince other people they need to vote for them. This is what always happens in democracies. I agree with Ellis that two party systems are much easier to manipulate than are multi party systems. That's why the conservatives in NZ are working so actively to return us to a two party system. Personally I think every country in the world should adopt the NZ system. I'm pleased with it although it looks very much as if the conservatives will get an absolute majority here in the next election.

But on topic again. Perhaps G. W. Caesar is a dinosaur and dinosaurs voted for him.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
"Perhaps G. W. Caesar is a dinosaur and dinosaurs voted for him."
That, Terry, is an exemplary economy of words. Why didn't I think of that? T.rex in sheep's clothing.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
This is related the posts above:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/i-believe-for-every-drop-_b_55753.html

"This "belief" thing runs alarmingly deep. In his [G.W.Bush] Cleveland speech, he said "I believe" 75 times"

"I can't help thinking that it's not just a rhetorical tic. In Bush's faith-based epistemology, the strongest possible justification for any action he takes is that he believes in it. Not that it's true; not that it's supported by evidence; not that it's consistent with the Constitution; not that it enforces the law; not that it's desired by the vast majority of the American people -- but that, like the Nicene Creed, he believes it"

"The truth is that the President has aggressively theologized policy differences"

"...what Bush possesses is a narcissism that he markets as a civic religion. He believes he was elected as the Defender of the Faith, and that it is we who are accountable to him, rather than he who is accountable to us."

"It was Thomas Jefferson who best described what's most pernicious about belief-based leadership: 'It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.'"


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
I still do not understand why people do not like Bush. The mere fact that there are so many people actively and overtly disagreeing with him proves his democratic ideas. If he was a T. Rex Cesar, dissedents would not be permitted in the government. That is how you can test a democracy, see how many different opinions are out there on various issues. A paradigm, which the liberals do not notice since their quest on "reason" and not "beleif."
Yes, his ratings are low, as are the Democratic-led Congress. But that would prove his openess in politics, setting a circle that many do not see. Perhaps this is in our evolutionary nature of survival of the fittest to disagree with everything, even in disagreement. The Iraq war is justified for a small defeat will be countered with a grand victory. I would think man would have learned after Vietnam what to do in the mud, for instead of eliminating it, they quickly get out, leaving thousands more to fall. Why I support Bush (aka Ceasar as one called him) is that he is open to the truth. History will agree with that. Instad of letting the terrorists -whose intent is to destroy Israel, Europe, and the United States- acheiving their goals, he takes a minimal defeat now to counter the large one later.
That is how reasonably and scientifically it makes sense. The liberals would have a good case if it wasn't for the circular motion the conservatives take it in. They are blind to the truth, progressing the circle furthur.
Ann Coulter has an article similar to this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070704/cm_ucac/studiesshowfelonssmarterthanliberals

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
A grand victory for whom?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Tim: "I would think man would have learned after Vietnam"

Perhaps humankind never will learn - that there's nothing glorious in war. There remains the eagerness for the most gross and hideous violence, and a total disregard for the sanctity of life. Is that the lesson that Christians learn from the teachings of Jesus? The Old Testament bloodlust has survived the Sermon on the Mount.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Tim. Study the reasons why Julius Caesar invaded Gaul and see if there are any similarities with Gorse W. Caesar and his friends' justification for the Iraqi invasion. History has an interesting habit of repeating itself. A quick look at Persia and Rome may also be informative.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Tim: "I still do not understand why people do not like Bush."

Many reasons. Here are a couple of biggies:

"A British minister suggested a shift in foreign policy away from the United States, telling an audience in Washington that a country's strength depended on making global alliances rather than military might."

"In a speech late on Thursday, International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said while Britain stood beside the United States in fighting terrorism, isolationism did not work in an interdependent world."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070713/ts_nm/britain_usa_dc_2;_ylt=AgrwnIFIfnuqouYXpIDGylOEDvII [13-07-2007]
___________

A slight thread detour - here's the kind of truth, refuted by creationists, that scientists offer for the good of everyone:

Professor Salzberg (director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland and lead author of a recent study that sequenced the genomes of more than 200 human influenza viruses) argues that creationists of various kinds, including proponents of ID, commit a very dangerous disservice to the well being of people in trying to downplay the teaching of evolution and undermine people's trust in it by casting doubts on the fact of evolution. This creationist activity is especially sinister in view of the hazards of new viral and microbial pandemics, including the avian flew and other ever-reemerging viral infections, which can be successfully fought only based on the concepts of evolutionary biology.

Bush, the Flu and Evolution -- by Steven Salzberg, Ph.D. (Nov 2005)

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20051117.073638

"Why has the debate about evolution re-emerged? Perhaps it is because few people see the obvious effects of evolution that geneticists and evolutionary biologists see every day. Consider the influenza virus. Like many viruses, it mutates very fast, creating many slightly different strains that compete to see which ones can infect their host most efficiently. Each year we create a new flu vaccine, which although not perfect is very effective. Why do we need a new vaccine every year? In a word, evolution. Each year the flu accumulates many mutations, and some of those mutations allow it to avoid the vaccine. These resistant strains quickly take over - that's what Darwin meant by phrase "natural selection" - and become next year's flu strain. The same thing happens with bacteria, and this is why our over-use of antibiotics - in animal feed, hand soaps, and a growing number of other products - is hastening the evolution of frightening new antibiotic-resistant bacteria."


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Those two quotes do not make any sense. The mere facet of the first one is cynical, and requires one to circle in thinking, which could be true if something else was true along with it.

"Why do we need a new baccine every year? In a word, evolution."
Yes, one could argue that, along with our over-use of antibiotics. But what I am trying to figure out is what that has to do with Bush.

"Isolationism did not work in an interdependent world."
I do not quite get that part. Is that saying that Britain is isolationist, or the United States? Because in both cases, there is a strong case to disprove that.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Tim,

Let me start by saying that I dislike talking about politics and I disapprove of anyone using science to prop up their personal politics or morality.

I completely leave aside the point that I personally despise Bush. Whom I love or loathe is irrelevant.

That said, I think the point that George Bush is elected is not entirely the full story. Yes, we collectively, voted for him. However, he is making decisions on a global scale that will effect the progeny of many, many nations for many decades to come. There are a whole lot of people in the world who did not vote for GW.

I don't think he is competent and I think he and some of his allies are a bunch of bullies. That is also irrelevant to a science forum. The fact that my fellow americans could TWICE vote for such a goober fills me with shame and imbues me with an unshakable depression. Also irrelevant to a science forum.

My opinion is not directly related to a war in Iraq which I could have supported even on such scant evidence as was supplied were it not that .... well, it's all irrelevant.

This guy - these guys - may 'listen' to others, but they don't pay attention. They pick and choose among the voices in the crowd - oil companies deciding national oil policy; tossing out CIA reports till they find one that supports what they want to believe; contradicting what his own science adviser says about evolution; firing an army chief of staff (Shinseki) who gives him an answer he doesn't like and overlooking his peers to bring on a former AF 4-star (Schoonmaker, a brilliant man, but with no experience to judge ground issues) to oversee the army; ignoring the best counsel of close allies and long-forged and hard-wrought friendships to forge a coalition of the willing. His selective use of 'information' is so infuriating, so contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry, so utterly asinine that it's barely possible to hold one's head up.

I won't write another post on the topic of Bush unless it is sufficiently related to science, but I wanted to lay out a few things that have been bugging me.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
I agree with TFF's remarks above. However, it's not easy to separate politics any other aspect of society - it seems to find its way into everything. Bush has been a major influence in undermining science, and seems to value it mainly for its potential to develop the most efficient war machines.

Tim: "The mere facet of the first one is cynical, and requires one to circle in thinking, which could be true if something else was true along with it."

Perhaps you might rephrase that in terms that even I can understand?

Tim: "I do not quite get that part. Is that saying that Britain is isolationist, or the United States...?"

Tim, you will notice that Britain has no wish to pursue an isolationist route. The British people objected to Mr. Blair's complicity with Bush's foreign policies, to the extent that he was compelled to leave office. I predict that you will see, with Mr. Brown as the new British PM, significant changes in UK foreign policy.

"...Because in both cases, there is a strong case to disprove that"

It doesn't much matter what you and I may think about the issue. What does matter is the reality that unfolds, and the consequenses, not only for your country, but for the world.
__________

Tim: "I would think man would have learned after Vietnam"

Perhaps humankind never will learn - that there's nothing glorious in war. There remains the eagerness for the most gross and hideous violence, and a total disregard for the sanctity of life. Is that the lesson that Christians learn from the teachings of Jesus? The Old Testament bloodlust has survived the Sermon on the Mount.

Your comments would be welcome.
__________

Tim: "Yes, one could argue that, along with our over-use of antibiotics..."

I recommend that you read the article and do some research, if you can find time. It's a solid case, not simply a matter of "one could argue that".

From the article:

"Scientists in my lab and others can tell you that developing a vaccine for the flu absolutely requires that we understand its evolution. We can also tell you that the flu doesn't "care" if we believe in evolution. It will keep evolving anyway, and it will kill us if we ignore it."

Tim: "But what I am trying to figure out is what that has to do with Bush."

I suggest that you follow the link and read the article. That's where you'll find the answer to your question. Mr. Bush's has shown evidence of failure to distinguish science from religion.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
I read the article, which was very well-written. But there was one thing that caught my eye: "Another recent poll revealed that less than half of the U.S. population knows that the earth revolves around the sun."
I would doubt that poll's authority. Perhaps it was a small pool intended for school-aged children, because I know that in my local area practicaly all beleive that the earth revolves around the sun.

" Let's drop the artificial debate about evolution and intelligent design and teach our children what science really is. Let's teach them that science requires a skeptical mind and that scientific theories must be supported by objective facts. If we want to teach children about scientific debates, let's pick a real debate - there are plenty of them - rather than an artificial one. And let's equip the next generation of scientists to bring us new cures and new technology, rather than burying our heads in the sand."
Fine piece of advice, I respect that. I wish that more would take his advice to heart. But still I did not see anything condeming Bush in that article, in fact he claimed that Bush spent "more than seven billion dollars."

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Tim: "I would doubt that poll's authority."

Yes, that also caught my eye. I put it down to the frustrated scientist sick of knocking his head against a wall of ignorance. It does let down an otherwise good article, and I guess it belies the idea that scientists are nothing more than emotionless robots grin

Tim: "But still I did not see anything condeming Bush in that article, in fact he claimed that Bush spent "more than seven billion dollars." "

Yes, you're quite right, that's the only direct reference to Mr. Bush. However, the entire essay concerns the debate regarding the validity of darwninan evolution v. ID as science. Since Mr. Bush, possibly the most influential voice in the US, gave verbal support for the teaching of both in the science classroom, the whole essay relates to him.

The $7 billion expenditure was, indeed, proposed by Bush. Maybe that's an indication that he's not as foolish as many suspect.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I tend to agree with TFF that:

"I disapprove of anyone using science to prop up their personal politics or morality."

But, like Redewenur, I accept politics and science are inseparable parts of life. Because of that I feel compelled to reply to one of Tim's comments:

"Instead of letting the terrorists -whose intent is to destroy Israel, Europe, and the United States- acheiving their goals"

I suppose it is impossible for you to see that those terrorists are a reaction to US and European imperialist ambitions. Their blind and biased support of Israel, their blind and biased support of several nasty dictators in the Muslim world and their blind and biased efforts to monopolise world trade.

TheFallibleFiend wrote:

"They pick and choose among the voices in the crowd"

It's certainly not my place to advise anyone how to vote but I'd suggest US citizens should not vote for anyone for Congress, the Senate or President unless they promise to investigate whose idea it was to pick and choose the evidence used to support the invasion of Iraq. We know a bunch of porkies was involved, so who made them up? Of course no investigation will ever materialise but just the suggestion of having one may open some citizens' eyes.

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 67
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 67
Originally Posted By: Tim
I read the article, which was very well-written. But there was one thing that caught my eye: "Another recent poll revealed that less than half of the U.S. population knows that the earth revolves around the sun."
I would doubt that poll's authority. Perhaps it was a small pool intended for school-aged children, because I know that in my local area practicaly all beleive that the earth revolves around the sun.


I just did a quick google (I believe on "earth" "Sun" and "revolve" and found references to a poll taken in the 90s that showed about 20% of respondents thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. I suspect that's the source of a lot of statements of this type, which I've heard in other places as well.

In my quick look, I didn't see any links to anything like an original or authoritative source, so I'm not bothering to post any. I suspect the poll actually gave results similar to what I describe here, though. Of course that was also in the 90s, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.


Mike B in OKlahoma

"Never confuse with malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
"Never confuse with malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Nice quote! And actually it fits in nicely with the theme "Why do people hate George Bush?" Maybe they are confusing malice with breathtaking incompetency too. It would be too cruel to assume anyone had MEANT this foreign policy mess to happen surely!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis: "It would be too cruel to assume anyone had MEANT this foreign policy mess to happen surely!"

Yes, it's hard to believe, but I recall seeing the ominous clouds of foreboding when I saw Senator Bush campaigning in a bomber jacket. There seems to be plentiful evidence of incompetence, but also much more than that. I think the Caesar analogy is close to the mark, although history tells us that Julius was nothing if not competent. Try Nero.

Sorry I can't make any additional connection with the forum topic, it's just a blatant political comment. It is, however, a comment on behalf of the hundreds of thousands who have died through this "incompetence".


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 67
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 67
Originally Posted By: Ellis
"Never confuse with malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Nice quote! And actually it fits in nicely with the theme "Why do people hate George Bush?" Maybe they are confusing malice with breathtaking incompetency too. It would be too cruel to assume anyone had MEANT this foreign policy mess to happen surely!


I only steal the best! I believe the original was from Napoleon Bonaparte, but am too lazy to confirm that right now.

In fairness to GWB, I think most of the problems he's created are due to incompetence, arrogance, and cronyism, rather than outright malice.


Mike B in OKlahoma

"Never confuse with malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Redewenur wrote:

"I can't make any additional connection with the forum topic, it's just a blatant political comment".

Sorry. But the relevance for members of SAGG is that the methods of persuasion used to promote the invasion are familiar to anyone who has read creationist literature. The arguments relied on deliberately ignoring vast amounts of conflicting evidence, quoting experts out of context and even deliberately leaving out or changing relevant words. It's not surprising that the greatest support for the invasion still comes from those of us who are used to accepting this form of argument to support other beliefs we might have. In spite of MikeBinOK's signature I think malice was at work in this case.

Now back to science.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, Terry, that's what I should have said.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I would allow malicious.... because maybe malice indicates a degree of strategic intent, or at least some degree of analysis. Actually I think blinkered incompetence, (and a dash of vanity), truly describes this particular tragedy.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Ellis wrote:

"I think blinkered incompetence, (and a dash of vanity), truly describes this particular tragedy".

Blinkered incompetence describes the lack of planning for any possible resistance on the part of the population but the deceit and lies used to justify the original invasion demonstrate cynical strategic intent. They even fooled poor old Colin Powell. I wonder why no attempt has been made to hold those responsible accountable?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Oh I had forgotten poor old Colin- I think he was an honourable man made to look foolish. I think that noone wants to stir that particular possum-- just imagine what may emerge. I think that deceit is part of the mess too, and all those deaths, on both sides, would have to lie on someone's conscience.

To hark back to the original topic - we are evolving quite nastily. If I had created this planet I think I'd be wishing I'd stuck with the dinosaurs, at least you would know where you were with them!

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Back to the subject. Here are some sites that clear the problem up for us sceptics. I'm sure they'll convince us all that Noah's ark is not just another myth:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dino_ark.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

And this one even explains why they died out once Noah had released them:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-fate2.html

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Staggering stuff, Terry.

My impression is...

... that Creationists are at the end of their rope with a fear that drives them to desperate lengths to bury reality beneath fantasy. There have always been truly horrendous conditions of life endured by many millions. There is cause enough for fear in any rational heart. There are certainly times when we all have difficulty dealing with objective truth - it can often be very unpleasant, to say the least. So, maybe I should feel more sympathy for Creationists. Yet burying the head in the proverbial sand doesn't even begin to meet the challenge of improving the world. Ultimately, reality has to be faced. If there are solutions to be found, science and a rational system of ethics will find them.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Thanks terry - I needed to start the week with a laugh and the tiny, titchy dinosaur theory raised my spirits beautifully. Check the startled expression on the rabbit! And where did the idea of small mountains come from? Do people believe this rubbish? I know I keep asking that but honestly, it's really, really silly!!!! I am going to have to start treating it all with more respect like rede does.

So I'll, seriously, ask why believing such rubbish makes more sense to anyone than scientific historical truth. And why focus so much on dinosaurs?--could it be they are SO saleable and Disney has done the donkey work in marketting? Truth too hard----cue in Fantasy--yes that sounds like Disney!!!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis: "I am going to have to start treating it all with more respect like rede does."

Alas, keeping a straight face just makes it worse frown :

I was chatting with my friend Tom last night. I happened to mention SAGG, and Terry's links above. I told him about the person who wrote several paragraphs about...how they got the dinosaurs onto the Ark. It was a serious chat, and what I told Tom was just matter of fact. But the result was he nearly choked on his beer and was splitting his sides for several minutes. grin



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Glad you all enjoyed it folks. Ellis asked, "why believing such rubbish makes more sense to anyone than scientific historical truth." I think it's summed up in this link:

http://www.soulcare.org/Bible%20Studies/Genesis/Genesis6v14-7v24-Ark-Animals.html

Quote: "if a person doubts the Bible's accuracy about Noah's Ark, then for that person, the entire Bible looses its absolute authority in every other area in which it speaks ... Peter, and most significantly, Jesus, all present this story as historically accurate. In fact, it's historical validity is an essential cornerstone undergirding the very gospel in which we trust. If the story of Noah is not literally true as claimed by the writers of Scripture, then the promise of eternal life in Christ would be no more trustworthy than a fable."

Yes. If it's not literally true then the whole Bible is open to interpretation, God forbid (sorry, couldn't resist).

Here's another titbit from the link:

"Our CREATOR originally created many different types of creatures, each kind having a DNA genome capable of a vast potential for variation within that kind."

Really? Now perhaps someone can explain this to me. Each individual can have a maximum of only two variations for each gene. So two individuals can have a total of only four. Just these four variations have given rise to all the dog kinds?

One more regarding dinosaurs:

"Noah certainly would have taken young or even baby animals on the ark, not full grown adults of every kind. Even T. Rex eggs are smaller than a football, folks."

Wonder what he used as an incubator?

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
"I was chatting with my friend Tom last night. I happened to mention SAGG, and Terry's links above. I told him about the person who wrote several paragraphs about...how they got the dinosaurs onto the Ark. It was a serious chat, and what I told Tom was just matter of fact. But the result was he nearly choked on his beer and was splitting his sides for several minutes."

That's awesome. And terrytnewzealand's post is humorous as well. Good one.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
And feeding the hoards of little baby animls would have been beyond challenging-what about the baby mammals with all their specialised milk requirements? (no don't suggest pigs ANYONE), plus the meat requirements of baby dinosaurs and grass for elephants and what about the whales, did they just bob along beside the Ark? It doesn't make sense and people believe it? Personally if I were a believer of this nonsense I would be happier to believe that the divine being helped and I had to have faith that it happened as stated ...or that it was arranged by aliens and it is in fact DNA not animals and they decanted them at the end. Actually I think the latter silly theory makes far more sense really!!

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Ellis wrote:

"or that it was arranged by aliens and it is in fact DNA not animals and they decanted them at the end."

I actually know people who believe that. I keep trying to point out to them the whole story is most likely a myth. The story may have originated through the survival of a Mesopotamian farmer along with his family and livestock but there's no need to explain anything more complicated. But biblical beliefs are so deeply ingrained that even people who would claim not to be Christian still try to come up with explanations for biblical stories. Crazy, isn't it.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, certainly resembles craziness.

It's the kind of 'craziness' that's particularly evident in many religious people, who opt to support a religious viewpoint or organisation, or else are born into membership, then seem to spend the rest of their lives trying, and failing in their heart of hearts, to justify their beliefs. On the other side of the fence, there are many people calling themselves 'atheists' who, whilst asserting their non-belief, display an equivalent uncertainly in an apparent search for evidence that their non-belief is justified. Somehow, in both cases, the search for justification does not convince.

The impression I have from this is that, adamant claims notwithstanding, agnosticism rules. Beneath the veneer of certainty lies a question mark that admits a lack of vital knowledge, in place of which exists a hypothesis.



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Redewenur wrote:

"in place of which exists a hypothesis."

Just one hypothesis?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
...or various hypotheses.

(Thank you, Terry)


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
"But biblical beliefs are so deeply ingrained that even people who would claim not to be Christian still try to come up with explanations for biblical stories. Crazy, isn't it."

I dont think it's crazy, its just been implanted in our culture. For many years, Christianity was the "norm," but not its losing steam to agnosticism and atheism, who try to give different reasons for biblical beleifs. Thus, if you were to say it was crazy, you would be asserting both the Christians and the non-Christians are.
Yeah, the hypotheses or theories about the past are made (some with supporting evidence, some without). It is not crazyness, it is human-ness.
But wait, aren't human-ness and craziness the same?! laugh

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Tim.

"Thus, if you were to say it was crazy, you would be asserting both the Christians and the non-Christians are"

- In this matter I didn't draw a distinction between "many religious people" (I didn't specify 'Christians') and "many people calling themselves atheists".

"Yeah, the hypotheses or theories about the past are made"

- I did not refer to hypotheses about the past, but about God.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Tim, your comments:

'its just been implanted in our culture. For many years, Christianity was the "norm," ... the hypotheses or theories about the past are made (some with supporting evidence, some without).'

sum up my ideas on the subject very well. The comments are even more relevant for hypotheses about God as they are for hypotheses about the past. Christianity (and all other religions) is simply based on hypotheses about God.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
"Christianity (and all other religions) is simply based on hypotheses about God"

Bull's-eye.

Yet many, whose inner experience is sufficient, have no need to hypothesise about either God or history.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
Hear, hear, rede.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5