Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1970 of 3694 (905723)
02-02-2023 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1958 by Tanypteryx
02-02-2023 10:38 AM


Re: The Spirit Of Sacrificial Giving
Let's start with the hungry children in the U.S. How much federal income tax do you pay? I would bet that not more than a nickel of the tax you pay per year is spent helping feed hungry people, you whiny, self-centered !@#$%^&*!
I've posted this before, so here's a summary plus the video:
Here in his Where Your Tax Dollars Really Go video (same link), Robert Reich breaks down how much discretionary spending goes to what programs and services:
  • 4% Foreign Aid - International
  • 3% Science, Space, Technology
  • 3% Natural Resources, Environment
  • 3% Transportation
  • 2% Community & Regional Development
  • 5% Administration of Justice
  • 5% Health, CDC, NIH
  • 6% Income Security (including Food Stamps)
  • 7% Education and Training
  • 7% Veteran Benefits
  • 1% All other, including energy, agriculture, and commerce
That's only 46%. Remaining 54% goes to the military, most of which goes to defense contractors.
Further note: mandatory spending includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Affordable Care Act. Social Security old-age benefits and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes, not income tax. Their only contribution to the debt is that they are required to invest their trust funds wisely, namely by buying government bonds, which makes the government indebted to those trust funds.
According to Wikipedia, US Federal Budget: Major expenditure categories, discretionary spending in 2021 was $1.2T (that's American trillions, 1012, not real trillions, 1018).
Food stamps account for a portion of six percent (6%) of that (Income Security in the list above, which also includes unemployment). 6% of $1.2T is $72 billion (109). I repeat: SNAP only accounts for a portion of that 6%. According to the article on the Food Stamp program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
quote:
SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion. Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits. Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and have declined through 2017 as the economy recovered. It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans.
So using those figures we arrive at: $57.1×109 ÷ $40×106 people = $1427.50 / person. Of course, that would include overhead, so we're talking about less than $118.96 going to each recipient per month (or $27.45 per week, which is only about one day's per diem on my military travel claims a few decades ago). Interestingly, my food costs worked out to $512.87 last month, which works out to $118.35 per week. And I'm not extravagant plus I have an old man's reduced appetite (usually two small meals a day).
So $57.1 billion is too much to keep people from starving and should instead be sacrificed to give the super-rich even more tax breaks? When that Trump Tax Scam was being discussed, I performed a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Just working from memory right now, I heard a figure of it amounting to $33,000 per person in the upper 1% (which in reality starts at an annual income of a measly half-million), so I applied that to the size of 1% of the US population (about 3 million) to arrive at how many billions of dollars that would entail (about $110 billion). Then I distributed that amount to the entire US population (333 million) in which case each person would receive about $330. The difference would be that if everybody received an extra $330, they would spend it and that money would go straight back into the economy (ie, a $110 billion stream-line injection straight into the economy's vein), whereas a billionaire or mere multi-millionaire would just stick a measly $33,000 check in a drawer or else gamble with it on the stock market, thus keeping the vast majority of that $110 billion from ever making its way back into the economy. Therefore, we should put our money where it will do the most good.
We should also consider who is eligible for SNAP. Military pay is still low, especially for junior enlisted, so many junior enlisted families depend on SNAP just to eat. In addition, Walmart, that gleaming monument to capitalism, depends strongly on welfare programs, including SNAP, for its employees to survive on their meager pay due to low hours (which also enables Walmart to avoid providing medical benefits, though I've been hearing that in the post-COVID jobs market they've been having to clean up their act). A standard part of new-hire orientation at Walmart would be how to apply for welfare including Food Stamps.
So, why not just let them go hungry or even starve? Consider that two of the most impactful revolutions in Western history, the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917, were largely triggered by and greatly fueled by the rebellion of starving peasants.
I have also recently heard that the banks -- and hence the overall economy -- benefited greatly by our keeping people solvent during the pandemic. That is because enabling people to continue paying on their loans instead of having to default kept the economy working. I don't understand why this would be such a difficult idea to understand: a functioning economy is much better than economic collapse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1958 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2023 10:38 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1973 by Phat, posted 02-02-2023 2:26 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 1978 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2023 6:45 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1971 of 3694 (905725)
02-02-2023 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1968 by Tanypteryx
02-02-2023 12:54 PM


Re: The Spirit Of Sacrificial Giving
It's clear he thinks poverty is a character flaw.
IOW, prosperity theology:
quote:
Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith) is a religious belief among some Protestant Christians that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. Material and especially financial success is seen as a sign of divine favor.
Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders from various Christian denominations, including within some Pentecostal and charismatic movements, who maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes idolatry, and is contrary to the Bible. Secular as well as some Christian observers have also criticized prosperity theology as exploitative of the poor. The practices of some preachers have attracted scandal and some have been charged with financial fraud.
. . .
It was during the Healing Revivals of the 1950s that prosperity theology first came to prominence in the United States, although commentators have linked the origins of its theology to the New Thought movement which began in the 19th century. The prosperity teaching later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was adopted by influential leaders in the Pentecostal movement and charismatic movement in the United States and has spread throughout the world. Prominent leaders in the development of prosperity theology include Todd White, Benny Hinn, E. W. Kenyon, Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Robert Tilton, T. L. Osborn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Reverend Ike, Kenneth Hagin, and Joseph Prince.
Creflo Dollar? Really? The Wikipedia page on him gives no hint of that not being his actual name.
I prefer Johnny Dollar, "the man with the action-packed expense account". Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar originally aired 1949--1962 and plays on Sirius XM's Radio Classics channel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1968 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2023 12:54 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1972 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2023 2:25 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 1974 by Phat, posted 02-02-2023 2:35 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1980 of 3694 (905747)
02-02-2023 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1973 by Phat
02-02-2023 2:26 PM


Re: The Spirit Of Sacrificial Giving
  • How much are we sending to the Ukraine? Why cant we send money to Mexico and open up that border? Let them get rid of the cartels and corruption and join us to help pay our social security?
  • What the hell are you talking about? What is any of that supposed to mean?
    We are working with NATO to help a sovereign nation defend itself against an armed genocidal invasion -- "genocidal" because Putin's stated goals are to eliminate a separate Ukrainian people with its own country, language, culture, and identity, including the wholesale kidnapping of Ukrainian children and transporting them to Russia, erasing their personal history (and any hope of their families ever finding them again), having them adopted by Russian families to raise them as Russians.
    What the hell is that supposed to have to do with Food Stamps?
    We are working with Mexico in many ways as should be the case with a neighboring country. What's your beef with that?
    And why are you talking about opening up the border? We do need to have a secure border, but the previous administration (Trump) scrapped the system that we had had in place (eg, having seekers of asylum applying and being processed in their country of origin rather than have them suddenly show up at the border to start the process) and we're stuck with having to try to clean up that mess at the same time that we have to deal with the situation created by Trump and his minions (eg, Gollum look-alike Stephen Miller).
    We are working with Mexico in dealing with the cartels and have been for years; DEA operations and the US Navy and Coast Guard on LEO (Law Enforcement Operations to intercept smuggling) come immediately to mind. But "join us to help pay our social security"??? What the fuck are you talking about???
  • Why are we letting desperate people in from as far away as Venezuela instead of helping Mexico? ...
  • We do have asylum laws. And we used to have ways to process asylum seekers in their own country, but Trump scrapped those processes. And we used to provide aid to countries to reduce the need for their people to seek asylum, but that was also scrapped by Trump's administration. And we're still having to deal with ICE and Homeland Security operatives left over from Trump and still trying to run things Trump's way.
    The system is clearly broken and we very much need to enact immigration reforms. The primary problem with getting that done is obstruction from the Republicans in Congress who do not want to solve the problem. They want the problems to continue so that they can do their performance politics of complaining loudly about the problem and blaming it on the Democrats, but then when they come into power they do nothing about it, saving the problem to blame on the next Democratic administration.
  • ... Why are we spending so much more than we have to spend?
  • A functional government needs funding in order to function.
    The situation on the border is also raises humanitarian issues, something that is completely alien to "true Christians". While Republicans are proud of transporting these people north and dump them to freeze and starve on the streets, humanitarian concerns dictate otherwise.
     
    Time for dance classes. I'll get to the rest of your reply later.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1973 by Phat, posted 02-02-2023 2:26 PM Phat has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 2279 of 3694 (909368)
    04-01-2023 8:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 2273 by Phat
    03-16-2023 7:53 AM


    Re: Introducing The Cosmic Skeptic
    I lean more towards Ian Shoales; eg:
    Closing statements of the narrator:
    quote:
    Ride the currents of popular culture with Ian Shoales. It's all rock-n-roll to him.
    Sadly, Ian had slowed down considerably by this time. His delivery on the radio was much more rapid-fire. You couldn't quote him later to a friend because it went by so fast that you had no time to memorize any of it.
    Basically, he was what Ben Shapiro could have been if Shapiro had turned to good instead of evil.
    -------------------------------
    Leonard regarding Sheldon Cooper:
    "He's just one laboratory accident away from becoming a super-villain."
    -------------------------------
    ABE: A better sample of Ian Shoales from 2000, before his expiration date:
    Courtesy of the Duck's Breath Theatre.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2273 by Phat, posted 03-16-2023 7:53 AM Phat has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 2298 of 3694 (909662)
    04-08-2023 3:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 2295 by Dredge
    04-08-2023 1:58 AM


    Re: What's Important enough?
    If the latter (reality) is determined by the former (science), they're the same thing and you have a tautology.
    You forget that a tautology is always true.
    And as AZPaul points out (Message 2297), that first clause is perhaps the most extremely stupid bullshit you've ever excreted.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2295 by Dredge, posted 04-08-2023 1:58 AM Dredge has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2301 by Dredge, posted 04-08-2023 6:48 PM dwise1 has replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 2303 of 3694 (909704)
    04-08-2023 8:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 2301 by Dredge
    04-08-2023 6:48 PM


    Re: What's Important enough?
    Observe my avatar. Does it look like Dredge is excreting "extremely stupid bullshit"? No, it does not.
    Doch! Bullshit, putrid scum ... what's the difference?
    You constantly spew a steady stream of crap/crud! About 2000 gallons per minute (upwards of 8800 gal/min).
    That's a helluva lot of BS you spew non-stop!
    ---------------------------
    Emperor Joseph II: I mean, just look at it!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2301 by Dredge, posted 04-08-2023 6:48 PM Dredge has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    (3)
    Message 2431 of 3694 (910993)
    05-30-2023 10:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 2430 by ICANT
    05-30-2023 9:29 PM


    Re: AZ Conclusions...Difficult Answers
    Did gravity exist before the earth was inhabited?
    Yes, the phenomenon of gravity did indeed exist before the earth was inhabited.
    However, the Law of Universal Gravitation had to wait for a human to create it.
    Scientific laws do not run the universe and its workings. Rather, scientific laws only describe how the universe works to the best that humans can observe and describe such phenomena. Hence, scientific laws are Man-made.
    Should be very easy to understand, but I will offer an analogy.
    I have an atlas of topographical maps of Southern California. Each map is a detailed description of the shape of the terrain. The shape of the terrain is not dictated by the map, but rather that shape is determined by other forces and processes that have operated on it over time. All the map does is describe human observations of the shape of the terrain. The terrain existed long before humans came along to observe it (albeit not entirely in its present form, since that form is dynamic and changes constantly through natural forces and processes). Maps did not exist until humans drew them.
    All that should be self-evident.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2430 by ICANT, posted 05-30-2023 9:29 PM ICANT has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 2464 of 3694 (911242)
    06-20-2023 2:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 2461 by candle2
    06-20-2023 12:31 PM


    Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
    I would think that the term fool would better apply to
    one who believes in evolution, even though there are no
    transitional fossils to support this misconception.
    I replied to that lie in Message 1861. Read it and respond!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2461 by candle2, posted 06-20-2023 12:31 PM candle2 has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 2465 of 3694 (911243)
    06-20-2023 2:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 2462 by PaulK
    06-20-2023 12:42 PM


    Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
    Really, why do Creationists always think that lying is the answer?
    Because lies and lying are all they have.
    They believe that reality disproves God, so they have to try to disprove reality. The problem is that all the evidence supports reality. So they are left with nothing except to lie.
    The irony is that if they actually were to believe in Divine Creation, that God did create the Universe (AKA Reality), then they would see everything in that Creation as evidence of God (and as a way to understand that God, like his inordinate fondness for beetles).
    Instead, they embrace a false theology in which the Creation disproves the Creator. It's a hell of their own making, like Trump's fate in the documents case.
    What is wrong with them?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2462 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2023 12:42 PM PaulK has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 2470 of 3694 (911250)
    06-20-2023 6:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 2468 by candle2
    06-20-2023 5:33 PM


    Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
    The events in the Bible are factual.
    In the Doc Savage stories, he and his team operated out of New York City. New York City actually exists and did so in the 1930's. Therefore, the Doc Savage stories are factual and Doc Savage actually existed.
    QED
    The Shadow also lived and worked in New York City at the same time. Therefore, The Shadow was also real since his stories are also factual.
    I wonder why we never heard of Doc Savage and The Shadow teaming up. Betcha The Shadow knows!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2468 by candle2, posted 06-20-2023 5:33 PM candle2 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2487 by Phat, posted 06-21-2023 11:42 PM dwise1 has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 2500 of 3694 (911298)
    06-23-2023 10:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 2484 by Phat
    06-21-2023 11:15 PM


    Re: United Church of God Teachings
    First, let's examine what the church says about itself.
    About the United Church of God
    Your church is very thorough in its education of members beyond the Bible itself. I don't see any false teachings yet, but I am wary since years ago I listened to Herbert W. Armstrong.

    Apparently, your church was a reorganized new start, though Ambassador College descends from Armstrong as does the magazine (formerly known as The Plain Truth ) and now known as Beyond Today.
    To be fair, it looks as if your church UCG split from Armstrong's Worldwide Church Of God in 1995.

    I'm not challenging your core teachings yet, though it appears that you have been taught an agenda. Dwise1 reminds me that Calvary Chapel had a strong agenda and that there is organized religion behind the scenes.
    As I described in my follow-up reply, Message 63, about Calvary Church Costa Mesa during the Jesus Freak period, one of their obsessions was sussing out and identifying The Beast and The AntiChrist. Interestingly, they identified Herbert W. Armstrong as a candidate for The AntiChrist.
    Even more interesting is that Donald Trump is the most blatantly and flagrantly obvious candidate for The Beast and yet they support him passionately. Just as they had predicted, that Christians (even "true Christians") would be deceived into following him.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2484 by Phat, posted 06-21-2023 11:15 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2503 by candle2, posted 06-26-2023 8:34 AM dwise1 has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    (1)
    Message 2501 of 3694 (911299)
    06-23-2023 10:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 2495 by Phat
    06-23-2023 8:14 AM


    Re: Oops He said it Again
    Only humans take credit for natural laws that existed before humans themselves did.
    Wrong, as has been explained several times; eg, my Message 2431 in this topic:
    dwise1 writes:
    ICANT writes:
    Did gravity exist before the earth was inhabited?
    Yes, the phenomenon of gravity did indeed exist before the earth was inhabited.
    However, the Law of Universal Gravitation had to wait for a human to create it.
    Scientific laws do not run the universe and its workings. Rather, scientific laws only describe how the universe works to the best that humans can observe and describe such phenomena. Hence, scientific laws are Man-made.
    Should be very easy to understand, but I will offer an analogy.
    I have an atlas of topographical maps of Southern California. Each map is a detailed description of the shape of the terrain. The shape of the terrain is not dictated by the map, but rather that shape is determined by other forces and processes that have operated on it over time. All the map does is describe human observations of the shape of the terrain. The terrain existed long before humans came along to observe it (albeit not entirely in its present form, since that form is dynamic and changes constantly through natural forces and processes). Maps did not exist until humans drew them.
    All that should be self-evident.
    In science, laws are our descriptions of how we observe natural phenomena to work. Theories are our models to explain how they work. Both are obviously Man-made.
    candle2 falsely claims to have a Theory of the Divine Origin of Life by having claimed to know how life began by supernatural means. He has so far refused to describe his theory to us. Of course, mere "goddidit" does not have any explanatory power since it is nothing more than an admission of complete ignorance.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2495 by Phat, posted 06-23-2023 8:14 AM Phat has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    (3)
    Message 2508 of 3694 (911346)
    06-27-2023 3:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 2505 by candle2
    06-27-2023 11:32 AM


    Re: United Church of God Teachings
    First, please note the point that PaulK made in Message 2507 that you completely changed the subject in order to avoid the points he made in Message 2504 regarding you having made up a lot of shit that's not in the Bible. Typical, typical, typical.
    Second, thank you for your testimonial that you believe that your religion can only be supported by lies. Which is your admission that your religion is itself a steaming crock of BS. Thank you for your public service in warning us away from it.
    If that were not the case, then you would not be so adamant in the near-exclusive use of lies.
    Lucy ... {stream of creationist lies}
    Please, what is your source of this latest stream of lies? What will we discover when we examine that source's claims?
    ABE Phase One:
    It appears that your source was from Genesis Apologetics, "Genesis Apologetics Tour of the Natural History Museum (DC) - Lucy" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qiXhyKDNK0&t=0s ), which Erika (see immediately below) critiques in the second of her videos listed below:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3F6QCnXUhU (1:35:38) -- Let's Chat about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Busting Creationists
    Though at the beginning she complains that so many of these creationist videos just copy from each other all spreading most of the same falsehoods, many of which can only be characterized as lies. This is especially evident when the producer of this video named Tate hides the source of the graphics and tables he presents, along with other tricks (eg, quickly rushing through a claim without giving you any chance to think about it, which Erika uses as an excuse to praise the ability to pause a video).
    Anyway, it seems that almost every point that she critiques is from your rant, so I'll point you to the time marks in that video.
    Erika (better known on YouTube as "Gutsick Gibbon") has her YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon , where her intro description reads:
    quote:
    Welcome to Gutsick Gibbon! I'm Erika, a current PhD student in Biological Anthropology. I have a Masters of Research degree in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation with a BSA in Pre-Professional Animal Science and minors in Anthropology and in Biology.
    Here you can find videos concerning primates, general zoology, paleontology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology! I also spend a hefty amount of time debunking Young Earth Creationism, which I find to be an enjoyable hobby akin to debunking Flat Earth.
    I find there to be a deep and personal beauty in being a part of the animal kingdom, and thus strive to be a gentle and modern ape. I hope you leave here feeling the same way!
    That means that she has studied the subject of primate evolution (which includes human evolution) far deeper and more thoroughly than either you or your source has. She is also in the teaching mode, so she is very good at explaining things and in actually showing us the differences between species and explaining details of those differences.
    A few decades ago, an evangelical Christian and then-PhD candidate in Physical Geology had a discussion ring on science and religion. He has retired from the issue since graduating and starting his family, but at the time he wrote (my emphasis added):
    quote:
    In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?
    IOW, Erika knows what she's talking about, unlike your creationist source.
    She was also raised a young-earth creationist, so she is thoroughly familiar with those claims and has researched them. Several of her videos address the lies that creationists tell (eg, the book Bones of Contention, the movie Dismantled, A Scientific Deconstruction of Evolution" ("'Dismantled' is the Most Dishonest Documentary I've Ever Seen")) as well as the many serious problems with creationist claims (eg, the heat problem). If you were to buck your established history of creationist dishonesty and provide us a reference to your source for this message (Message 2505), then we may find that Erika has already critiqued it in one of her videos. Mind you, once she gets started a video can end up being hours long. That makes sense, since once we start examining the facts, there are so many that it takes time to cover them. Creationism is so much briefer since all you need to do is to close your eyes, plug up your ears, and lie your ass off in order to deny reality.
    Here are a few of Erika's videos dealing with Lucy:
    I only had time to watch the first one before this morning's OLLI class, so I will refer to it in this reply. I recommend that you watch all three for your edification as well as to coax your head free from your rectum.
    Scientists claim to have fragments of over 400
    Australopithcines. However, all the fragments combined
    fits on one table.
    Erika also refers to 400 individuals, whereas your remarks about what's missing, etc, refer to just the one individual known as "Lucy". What's missing in one individual can be present in other individuals; eg, Lucy's feet are missing, but we do have the feet of several other individuals. And there's also that inconvenient fact that our bodies have bilateral symmetry, such that if you know what the right side looks like, then you also know what the left side looks like.
    Also, I have seen that photo of "all the fragments combined fits on one table". Both photos, actually. The one that creationists publish and the actual photo the creationists have cropped to hide the large number of fossil fragments. The cropped creationist photo only shows a small fraction of the total number of fossil fragments. That cropping and misrepresentation could be nothing other than deliberate deception.
    Verily, creationists are fucking liars!
    When a portion of Lucy's pelvis was found it was
    flared out, much like that of an ape.

    However, the pelvis was damaged; so, these great men
    of integrity cut it into and then they glued it together again.

    But they made it appear more like that of a human;
    an upright walker.
    In comparing the skeletal features related to bipedalism, Erika compares human, chimpanzee, and Australopithecus afarensis (I'll refer to that as "Lucy") skeletons.
    In the case of the pelvis, the chimp and Australopithecus pelvises look nothing alike, but Lucy's looks much closer to the human pelvis. Then getting into the details, Erika shows specific characteristics in the human pelvis vital to bipedalism (eg, a broad sacrum, a ridge for the attachment of a muscle vital to bipedalism) which the chimp pelvis does not have but which Lucy did have -- Erika even goes so far as to point out and describe those features or lack thereof on all three pelvises (ie, no vague hand-waving like creationists do).
    ABE Phase One:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3F6QCnXUhU -- Let's Chat about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Busting Creationists -- time mark 54:30
    There were no bones of the feet, but that did not
    prevent them from giving it human feet.
    As already pointed out above, we do have the feet of several other individuals and they are indeed human-like.
    Fucking lying creationists!
    The way Lucy's spine entered her skull allowed her to
    walk on all four.
    Yeah, sure, even we humans can walk on all four. We can't do it very well. And we have to strain to tilt our head back at a very unnatural angle in order to see anything except for the ground directly below our head.
    The reason is the foramen magnum, the hole in the head through which the brain stem attaches to the spinal cord. The foramen magnum of humans and Lucy clearly show us to be/have been bipedal, whereas the foramen magnum of chimpanzees clearly show that they are not.
    Of importance is both the placement and the angle of the hole and Erika shows that one the three skulls in detail. In humans it's placed more forward than in chimps and the hole angles much more forward than in chimps, indicating the direction at which the spinal cord leaves the cranium. Lucy's placement and angle are very close to that of humans, indicating bipedalism.
    I mean, really, what stupid creationist did you get that claim from?
    There's also the business of body proportions. Bipedalism needs different proportions (eg, legs longer than the arms) than does knuckle-walker than does brachiation (swinging from the branches like a gibbon). Lucy has the body proportions for bipedalism. Yes, Erika does cover that as well (in fact, it's one of the first things she covers).
    ABE Phase One:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3F6QCnXUhU -- Let's Chat about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Busting Creationists -- time mark 30:25
    This is an example where the video's producer tried to hide his source.
    Lucy has curved fingers designed for tree climbing. The
    shape of the radius bone and the way it entered the
    wrist allowed it to lock in place.
    Erika also notes arboreal characteristics and that there's disagreement as to whether Lucy was both arboreal and bipedal (on the ground) or whether the arboreal features were remnants from a more arboreal form.
    But just what the hell is that supposed to have to do with bipedalism? What the hell are you talking about?
    Also, what's this "lock in place" business? That would be useful for brachiation, but Lucy's body proportions do not match with that mode of motion. And knuckle-walking requires specialization that humans and Lucy do not have, not to mention very different body proportions.
    ​​
    ABE Phase One:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3F6QCnXUhU -- Let's Chat about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Busting Creationists -- time mark 58:00
    The producer had drawn lines to hide the fact that the three joints (chimp/Lucy/human) are very similar and that Lucy's is intermediate but trending towards the human.
    As for the curved versus straight phalanges, starting at 59:55 she tells of one lecture in which the professor showed the class two xrays of hands, one with curved fingers and the other with straight fingers, and asked the class to identify which was chimp and which was human. The one with curved fingers was a human gymnast while the one with straight fingers was from a chimp that had been raised in captivity and not been allowed to exercise his arboreality. Therefore, curved versus straight is not a set trait, but rather the product of usage.
    Nothing but a knuckle-walker.
    As already noted, Lucy's characteristics are inconsistent with knuckle-walking.
    Or are you also abjectly ignorant of what knuckle-walking requires and how to identify a knuckle-walker from its skeleton?
    Recreations of Lucy in museums show her eyes to be
    white like humans, not brown or dark like apes.
    Look at photos of both human and non-human apes. Not all humans have white sclera (whites of the eye) and white sclera do occur in non-human apes (from that link):
    quote:
    The eyes of all non-human primates had been thought to be dark with small, barely visible sclera, but recent research has suggested that white sclera are not uncommon in chimpanzees, and are also present in other mammals.
    The wonderful thing about living in a scientific world is that each of us is able to test what we have been told in order to determine whether it is true. You should try doing that some time. Even the Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to that which is true, so why won't you?
    ABE Phase One:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3F6QCnXUhU -- Let's Chat about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Busting Creationists -- time mark 18:18
    Enjoy the slide show! The Eyes have it!
    Then at 1:21:40 as Erika continues to play the Genesis Apologetics video, it shows a closeup of a gorilla with ... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... white sclera!!!!!! Typically, the creationists cannot keep their story straight!
    Erika's reaction: "Am I taking crazy pills? Who authorized this? Why would they think this was a good idea?"
    Lucy was an ape.
    So are we. So what's your point?
    Oh yeah! Your point is that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2505 by candle2, posted 06-27-2023 11:32 AM candle2 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2556 by candle2, posted 07-13-2023 9:27 AM dwise1 has replied
     Message 2558 by candle2, posted 07-13-2023 10:08 AM dwise1 has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    (1)
    Message 2517 of 3694 (911381)
    07-01-2023 2:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 2505 by candle2
    06-27-2023 11:32 AM


    Re: United Church of God Teachings
    We've already explained to you what complete and utter bullshit lies you have posted about Lucy. Though I have no doubt that you refuse to read them, undoubtedly with your usual whine that your phone is too small to read anything on it.
    Erika ("Gutsick Gibbon") posted a new video addressing creationist hypocrisy, mainly how they accuse scientists of lying while they lie their asses off -- The World's Biggest Hypocrite at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaYVFPEw_l0 (will not embed). She runs through a video by Calvin of the Answers in Genesis Canada branch and critiques it.
    This was posted in the comments section.
    quote:
    I get so furious whenever YECs talk about Lucy (it's irrational...she's just the first fossil ancestor I learned about and I love her). Leave her alone! She (maybe!) fell out of a tree and died! Hasn't she been through enough?!
    Calvin also invokes the famous PT Barnum quote about a sucker being born every minutes. Actually, I have myself used it many times in the past four decades to describe why PRATTs exist ("Points Refuted A Thousand Times"). Most creationist claims -- and especially the young-earth ones -- were around in 1980 when I started studying "creation science" and undoubtedly predate that by several decades -- indeed, the Seventh Day Adventists (SDAists) in the 1920's are a primary source of so many standard young-earth claims used by creationists who, I would assume, would consider SDAists to be members of a cult. What I have noticed is that many old creationist books are still circulating despite having been refuted (eg, H. Morris' Scientific Creationism and its bogus and refuted moon dust claim; see my page, MOON DUST about my research into that claim) and new books just repeat the same old refuted claims, often without citing their creationist source. The problem is that even though all those claims were refuted long ago, most commonly shortly after they were created, none of the creationist literature ever mentions that fact. Indeed, the creationists often add the lie that no scientist has ever tried to respond to those claims, when the fact is that not only have they responded, but they have also refuted those claims. Unfortunately, the creationist literature only prints the claims but make absolutely no mention of their refutations or never criticisms of them, deceiving new creationists into think that those false claims are true and recent (instead of being a half to a full century old) and nobody can respond to them. Then when they try to use those "unassailable" claims they become bug splatter on the windshield of Truth. Often, they realize how false creationism is and retire from the fray, but there's a boatload of new creationists coming down the pipeline to replace those casualties, all headed for the same fate.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2505 by candle2, posted 06-27-2023 11:32 AM candle2 has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    (3)
    Message 2532 of 3694 (911418)
    07-04-2023 12:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 2530 by nwr
    07-03-2023 9:38 PM


    Re: What is the reality?
    Yet when we look around at people who say they are Christian, most of them do not seem to be practicing this stewardship.
    For one thing, most Christians who give the matter any thought prefer to pay more attention to where it says we should have dominion over the earth and its animals.
    For another, the world will end soon -- any moment now according to all the signs of the End Times (which have been present for a couple millennia at least) -- so why bother to practice stewardship over something about to become a cinder (AKA "why polish the brass of a sinking ship?").
    Stewardship and End Times theology appear to be incompatible.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2530 by nwr, posted 07-03-2023 9:38 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2533 by nwr, posted 07-04-2023 12:59 AM dwise1 has not replied
     Message 2534 by GDR, posted 07-04-2023 10:44 AM dwise1 has not replied
     Message 2538 by Phat, posted 07-04-2023 1:54 PM dwise1 has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024