-
You musunderstand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
Personally, I think they're all victims. Just curious why you don't seem to care about Israeli civilians who fall victim to suicide bombers and missles.
Yeah, I know the rest. That last part especially about flying planes full of civilians into tall buildings full of more civilians. That all came some time after bombing some marines in Lebanon though. etc.
I don’t doubt that ancient cultures built a box that they believed God resided in [edit: oops, wrong ark, my mistake]. But that has little to do with bombing civilians or with creationist ramblings.
You are confusing your use of the word 'theory' with the meaning it has when used in a scientific context. What you are calling a 'theory' would be more accurately referred to as a 'hypothesis', which is a stronger form of conjecture, which is stronger than speculation (which hovers around 'conspiracy theory'). A hypothesis is a notion based on observations, from which one infers statements of potential truth. (we can't find living birds but we do find evidence that they existed not long ago, they likely are extinct now). A hypothesis in a scientific context is a testable conjecture. Testing a hypothesis requires discipline, skepticism, and knowledge of the difference between bias, observation, and belief. In a scientific context the hypothesis, the methods applied to test it, and the conclusions drawn, are reviewed by other knowledgeable experts, most of whom would be happy to prove you wrong.
A scientific theory has more power. It is a notion that is derived from tested hypothesis, known facts, laws of nature. A scientific theory is well substantiated with repeated observations. It often creates an organized system of accepted knowledge that has power to explain phenomena in a variety of circumstances. Yes a scientific theory (like Gravity or Evolution) could be proved wrong, but because they are assembled from mountains off well tested and well reviewed knowledge it is highly unlikely. Theories are consistent will all known information and generally have predictive power as well. Creationism has none of that (but of course you’re free to believe that it does). Now if you want to argue that finding a missing bird invalidates the whole theory of evolution. I can't help you until you decide to start using your rational brain. Form a hypothesis about how finding animals once believed extinct disproves the theory of evolution and test it.
Let me take this point by point:
First I'm sorry for the one post above, where I replied to one of your posts, got it
hopelessly garbled, and then could not manage to delete it.
I do care about Israeli civilians, and I know they die too, but the MSM covers their plight all too well. I just try to balance the bias...
Yes, we all know that planes full of people flew into towers full of more people, but there is much to ponder about 9/11, much more than that most of the "terrorists" were Saudis, and several of them are alive and well today (kind of like the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker). Consider that the WTC Towers were built to withstand such impacts, that the steel was UL rated to withstand more heat than the jet fual could generate, and for longer than the fuel burned. Most of it burned in external fireballs anyway, especially the second hit, for which the building went down first - inexplicable. My bottom line, I have seen controlled demolitions live and on video. I know what to look for. In videos of the WTC Towers coming down, you can SEE the cutting charges going off. There is no mistake, so don't even argue with me, just go watch one of the videos. I predict someone will post and say, "I watched it several times, and didn't see it." We're not all blessed with the ability to SEE what we're looking at - sorry! Besides, the Leaseholder spilled the beans when he admitted that he told the NYFD to "Pull" Building 7. That's industry slang for taking it down with a controlled demolition. I could go on for pages and pages with FACTS, but how many of you will believe it? I propose that some of you are deceived. You won't believe that, either...
The next paragraph I don't care to dignify...
Now, the theory thing. I can see that our scientific philosophies are very different. You seem to put "theory" almost on a level with a Law of Nature. I do not. To me, a theory should always be testable and falsifiable. If new evidence comes along which flatly contradicts it, the theory, however cherished, should go, not the evidence. That was my whole point,and you did not have to go into a sci/phil rant. I just said that the reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker chucks the theory that they are extinct. OR, in your view, since their continuted existence has not been (as far as I know) formally announced, we should still consider them extinct? Me rational? Oh, yes...
BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career. He wrote or co-wrote many of the classics in the Creationist Movement. He was well respected. Another is Duane T. Gish, who I have seen hold his own in debates with evolutionists. The whole trouble is that the theory of Evolution sits itself up as a gate-keeper, much as the AMA does against Homeopathy. Homeopathy is backed by a huge amount of research, their theory is sound, their method is sophisticated. But to the AMA, or the AMA-minded, they're just a little weird, you know... My bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are both scientific/intellectual/philosophical GIANTS duking it out, but one side is respectful, and the other side insists on treating the opposition as nut-cases. There are issues here, and not of the scientific kind. As I said elsewhere, money, power, and good science are a bad mix.
Please DO NOT read things I have not said into the above. Understanding what I do say seems rare without that...
Laz
-
Sorry, I just can not resist...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
Finding evidence that a boat existed over 2000 years ago, doesn't prove that Noah saved the animals on the word of god. It only proves that a boat existed over 2000 years ago.
[inserts tongue into cheek]
So I assume that if you found some flint arrowheads, you would deny that Indians hunted with them...
Laz
OK, OK, I'll take the slap...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
If creationism is fact then the evidence is totally misleading. That doesn't say much for a supreme being who would plant false or misleading information. I once tried to discuss carbon dating with a "creation" science believer. He didn't believe in carbon dating. I tried to explain, if radioactive decay did not occur as science says then atomic bombs and power wouldn't work.:ihih:
JoeE, the whole problem here is that you have one paradigm, and the creationist you were talking to has another. I gather that you are not well versed in creationist literature and ideas. I am familiar with both paradigms, and I know where this fellow is coming from. You put him down for his (to you) weird ideas, but keep in mind that to him YOUR ideas/concepts are weird. Two theories. Two worlds. Two universes. The two sides seem to, but do not entirely speak the same language.
Conventional Science is going down, and the struggle between Evolution and Creation is really old hat. The new battles forming up are between Classic Physics and Hyper Dimensional Physics - few even have heard of it. Also, the Electric Universe Hypothesis is rapidly gaining ground, and is so new, the alarms are probably not even ringing yet in ivy-clad academia. Stay tuned...
Laz
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollgirl
[inserts tongue into cheek]
So I assume that if you found some flint arrowheads, you would deny that Indians hunted with them...
Laz
OK, OK, I'll take the slap...
If finding arrowheads was the only evidence, then I would say that finding the arrowheads does not prove that Indians hunted with them.
You could certainly build a theory around what purpose the arrowheads might have served, but it would not be proof. The proof would come in other empirical evidence... As examples: Drawings or artwork by the Indians of them using arrows to hunt; animal DNA found on the arrows; or markings on animal bones or remains that are consistant with the arrows.
If someone were to actually find evidence of a boat on Mt. Ararat, you could design a theory about how it got there. And you might even convince me to believe your theory (not likely, however), but it's not empirical proof that it was Noah's boat.
-
What I don't understand is why when Isreal goes to war in the Middle East, why the rest of the world seems to think there must be some kind of cease fire? It just seems to be treated differently than when the U.S. invaded Iraq or other past conflicts between whatever country. Countries usually put out a statement either condemning or saying, "well it's justified", or ignore it all together, but with Isreal, there has to be all these meetings to try to hammer out a resolution to have a truse. It's like the rules for the rest of the world don't seem to apply for the Middle East. Maybe that's a bad thing. Maybe the world should try to intervene to stop any fighting between all countries. Maybe I don't have the whole picture but if I was Isreal, I'd be offended by countries trying to tell me not to do something when they have all mostly done the same thing themselves.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
What I don't understand is why when Isreal goes to war in the Middle East, why the rest of the world seems to think there must be some kind of cease fire? It just seems to be treated differently than when the U.S. invaded Iraq or other past conflicts between whatever country. Countries usually put out a statement either condemning or saying, "well it's justified", or ignore it all together, but with Isreal, there has to be all these meetings to try to hammer out a resolution to have a truse. It's like the rules for the rest of the world don't seem to apply for the Middle East. Maybe that's a bad thing. Maybe the world should try to intervene to stop any fighting between all countries. Maybe I don't have the whole picture but if I was Isreal, I'd be offended by countries trying to tell me not to do something when they have all mostly done the same thing themselves.
Most of the world seems fine when Israel takes missles and bombings but when they retaliate it's a different story.
Most of the world would like to see Israel gone.
-
[QUOTE=kexodusc]...when you're poor and things aren't going as well - it's easy to believe the big bad US tyrant imperialists are responsible for this mess.
. Kexo is correct.
Qu'ran:33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And he made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country that you had not transversed before."
Does anyone actually believe that the majority of Muslims would ascribe to this?
To place it in American context, how many would support unto the peril of their souls some of the headier excerpts from Exodus--the stoning of adulterers, the selling of daughters into slavery, etc.? Millions of Muslims throughout the world abhor what is being contorted from modernistic Islam.
But when the clerics in the madrassahs teach the above they are not speaking to enlightened minds. They are inculcating hate upon the poorest and most hopeless. There is no mention of science or mathematics, linguistics or engineering. This is the politics of power and manipulation. And the problem grows more complex when it is the case, as stated, that these regions lack the basic infrastructure and natural resource base to sustain any non oil-based growth. As we have seen in the American experience, it is also true that the lower classes have the most offspring, and thus the cycle continues.
Qu'ran: 8:39 " So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam"
That is the message inundating the youth of disenfranchised Islam, delivered by parents, political leaders, spiritual figures, and peers. Obviously effective but just a means to an end--the maintenance of the moneyed and powered elite...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollgirl
JoeE, the whole problem here is that you have one paradigm, and the creationist you were talking to has another. I gather that you are not well versed in creationist literature and ideas. I am familiar with both paradigms, and I know where this fellow is coming from. You put him down for his (to you) weird ideas, but keep in mind that to him YOUR ideas/concepts are weird. Two theories. Two worlds. Two universes. The two sides seem to, but do not entirely speak the same language.
Conventional Science is going down, and the struggle between Evolution and Creation is really old hat. The new battles forming up are between Classic Physics and Hyper Dimensional Physics - few even have heard of it. Also, the Electric Universe Hypothesis is rapidly gaining ground, and is so new, the alarms are probably not even ringing yet in ivy-clad academia. Stay tuned...
Laz
I didn't want to mention string theory or "branes".:ihih:
-
[quote=trollgirl
BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career.
What is a Hydologist? I can't find any reference to that title anywhere.:confused:
-
My bad!
[QUOTE=JoeE SP9][quote=trollgirl
BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career.
What is a Hydologist? I can't find any reference to that title anywhere.:confused:[/QUOTE]
I should have said/spelled "Hydrologist". Only one letter off, but as I get older, I must pay more and more attention to something I was once excellent at. String theory? It's too far "out there" to interest me. What about them "branes"? Wuzzat??
Laz
-
Laz, I thought I responded to your last post. This site is telling me I didn't. It may be the Beta version of IE I'm currently testing. "Branes" relate to string theory which suggests that different realities exist on "membranes". String theory suggests that the big bang was two "branes" touching at only one spot. The result being the "brane" we exist on.:idea:
-
Yes, that's it, too far "out there" even for me...
...and heck, my brother-in-law worries that I think the unthinkable. I dig the search for Atlantis, ancient technology, life on Mars, various conspiracies, history, theology, lots of subjects. However, when I sense that a theory is merely a mental construct, divorced from reality, I lose interest.
Laz
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollgirl
However, when I sense that a theory is merely a mental construct, divorced from reality, I lose interest.
kind of like the existence of God? ;-)
I know, cheap shot...but it is the Steel Cage...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollgirl
However, when I sense that a theory is merely a mental construct, divorced from reality, I lose interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
kind of like the existence of God? ;-)
I know, cheap shot...but it is the Steel Cage...
LOL! :lol:
(Sorry Laz, but that was funny)
-
Isreal right? Since when?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
As things in the Middle East have progressed over the last week, I can't help but think back to our conversation a short while ago when two US soldiers were killed and beheaded, about whether the US should have retaliated and, if so, how?
So, did Isreal do the right thing when two of their soldiers were captured? Is this how the US should have responded when it happened to them? What are your thoughts on the current situation in the Middle East?
The only thing that will quarantee security for Isreal in the long run is peace with its neighbours, including the Palestinians. I've said this for 40 years. It would involve consessions from Isreal followed by acceptance by the other parties.
But Isreal has never been prepared to make meaningful consessions. How come? Basically is that they feel they are negociating from strength: military if not moral. Why given in while we're winning they ask, (implicitly)? But you aren't "winning" if you can't win in the end. And Isreal can't bring the issue to an end using the strategies they have.
There is a lot of hypocracy in Isreal's position. They say, "Palestine Authority, get rid of Hammas, and we'll talk". And they say, "Lebanese Government, get rid of Hezbullah, and we'll leave". Apart from the fact that these supposed authorities simply cannot do those things, whose histoic actions motivated and gave pretext for these organizations? The answer this question is complex, but it begins with the Zionist movement.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
The only thing that will quarantee security for Isreal in the long run is peace with its neighbours, including the Palestinians. I've said this for 40 years. It would involve consessions from Isreal followed by acceptance by the other parties.
But Isreal has never been prepared to make meaningful consessions. How come? Basically is that they feel they are negociating from strength: military if not moral. Why given in while we're winning they ask, (implicitly)? But you aren't "winning" if you can't win in the end. And Isreal can't bring the issue to an end using the strategies they have.
There is a lot of hypocracy in Isreal's position. They say, "Palestine Authority, get rid of Hammas, and we'll talk". And they say, "Lebanese Government, get rid of Hezbullah, and we'll leave". Apart from the fact that these supposed authorities simply cannot do those things, whose histoic actions motivated and gave pretext for these organizations? The answer this question is complex, but it begins with the Zionist movement.
How can you negotiate with a group that denies your right to exist?:confused5:
-
Here's the thing ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
How can you negotiate with a group that denies your right to exist?:confused5:
The "negociation" always needed to be with the Palistinian people, not necessarily with Hammas or Hizbullah. The situation now is that these extremist groups increasingly have come to represent the majority of Palistinians. The recalcitrant Isreali attitude drove them to increasingly more extreme positions. Isreal has largely sqandered to possibility of dealing with moderate Arab opinion.
What can be done now? I don't know. Perhaps stronger UN intervention than has been tried in the past is possible, but past measures haven't been very helpful. What I do know is that Isreal cannot "win" by force. And they should not be encouraged to try; the US needs to end (or threaten to, for a start), military assitance to Isreal worth upwards of $2 billion a year. Instead, the US might, say, quaranteed against invasion by neighbouring states. If Isreal cannot deal with that reality, then let the chips fall where they may.
-
Israel should use some of their nukes and bomb the rest of the Middle East. The only way to have peace there and by extension the world is to get rid of Muslims.:ihih:
-
"Final Solution"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
Israel should use some of their nukes and bomb the rest of the Middle East. The only way to have peace there and by extension the world is to get rid of Muslims.:ihih:
Yep, sounds like the "final solution" to me. :cornut:
Or the US could nuke Isreal and be heros to the Muslim world, take your pick.
:idea: Let's do some math: 6 million Isrealis, (some of them Arab, granted), or 1.126 billion Muslims. Which would yield the greater approbation?
-
Worth reading
-
Thanks: a lucid article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
Anyone paying attention?
Is the situation beyond redemption? Perhaps it is.
-
We can always hope
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Anyone paying attention?
Is the situation beyond redemption? Perhaps it is.
If there ever was a time for devine intervention this is it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Yep, sounds like the "final solution" to me. :cornut:
Or the US could nuke Isreal and be heros to the Muslim world, take your pick.
:idea: Let's do some math: 6 million Isrealis, (some of them Arab, granted), or 1.126 billion Muslims. Which would yield the greater approbation?
Sounds good on paper. But I can't help feeling that some radical Muslim extremist (is that redundant?) would point to this act as final proof that America is a heartless devil, bent on destroying the world. "See what they did to our poor neighbors?"
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Sounds good on paper. But I can't help feeling that some radical Muslim extremist (is that redundant?) would point to this act as final proof that America is a heartless devil, bent on destroying the world. "See what they did to our poor neighbors?"
There's no moral authority for nuking anyone in this case. I hope everyone is "joking" here. A Muslim Holocaust is not worth the existance of Israel, and defies the principles on which she was founded. These things take times, and some skirmishes will happen.
Egypt and Jordan got over their prior conflicts with Israel. Relatively speaking, the battles with those countries were worse than what's going on now.
Israel pulled out of Lebanon partly to force Hezbollah to cross Israel's border in order to attack it. Well that's exactly what has happened. That strategy failed. And now it appears Israel is reversing its decision by moving back in to Lebanon to setup a buffer zone. To call this response "disproportionate" ignores history. Was the voluntary withdrawl of Lebanon "disproportionate"? Critics of that plan predicted this result.
-
I, for one ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
There's no moral authority for nuking anyone in this case. I hope everyone is "joking" here.
...
... am joking about nuking anybody, if that can be considered a joke. (Somebody else "started it", so it's was alright to keep going in that vein, eh?)
Let me state up front that I am not calling for the the destruction of Isreal. It exists and it's not going to go away. Palestinians and Arab states ought to face that fact pragmatically.
On the other hand, taking an historical view, Isreal exists only because of the circumstance of European politics and European imperialism in that part of the world. It is not something that the Arabs of the region wanted or deserved. The principles of the Zionist Movement are completely irrelevant to the aboriginal people who cannot be expected to respect them.
|