Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone!
Aussie
Member
Posts: 275
From: FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


Message 46 of 60 (363234)
11-11-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by alacrity fitzhugh
11-11-2006 1:22 PM


I live in our governor-elects home town.
St. Pete, eh? Nice little corner of Florida. I spent a few days on Ana Marie Island in September.
I will avoid making any gender-specific references toward you to try to avoid another introductory flop like I did with the much-annoyed brennakimi, who is female.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 11-11-2006 1:22 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-11-2006 5:19 PM Aussie has not replied

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 275
From: FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


Message 47 of 60 (363240)
11-11-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by truthlover
11-11-2006 2:13 PM


I'd love to tell you about it, but I can't derail this thread going into it. Feel free to read all you want at Error 404 (Not Found)!!1.
I'm not even sure exactly which "rail" we're on anyway...but Rose Creek seems like a nice place with friendly folks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by truthlover, posted 11-11-2006 2:13 PM truthlover has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 48 of 60 (363263)
11-11-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Aussie
11-11-2006 2:30 PM


i'm not annoyed. i just think it's funny. especially considering the doubles that stare me in the face all the time. but that's okay. i'm the first to admit that i don't think like a woman... you know, irrationally
i'm down in deerfield, btw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Aussie, posted 11-11-2006 2:30 PM Aussie has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 49 of 60 (363285)
11-11-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aussie
11-09-2006 2:11 PM


welcome!
I wonder how many people have overthrown their indoctrination in pseudoscience in a way similar to yours: doing research with the inital expectation of finding support for it. Quite a few, I expect.
Welcome to EvC, Aussie!
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : revision.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aussie, posted 11-09-2006 2:11 PM Aussie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Aussie, posted 11-11-2006 9:25 PM Archer Opteryx has replied
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2006 7:09 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 275
From: FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


Message 50 of 60 (363297)
11-11-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Archer Opteryx
11-11-2006 7:12 PM


Re: welcome!
I wonder how many people have overthrown their indoctrination in pseudoscience in a way similar to yours: doing research with the inital expectation of finding support for it. Quite a few, I expect.
Hello Archer! I love your "screen name". I spent more than one discussion with an evo trying to convince him that the archaeopterix was a desperate hoax in a last-ditch effort to continue to attempt to prop up a disintigrating theory. LOL.
I know how ludicrous this sounds, but I really felt like I had a grip on science. I see the literalists debating here and sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. No matter how many well-prepared and precisely-delivered lists of evidence for evolution and an old Earth are presented, they just throw out a new turn of phrase, or another variant in their long list of rhetorical objections, and leave feeling as if they have adequately defended the faith.
I have said this before, but I find this misunderstanding of science and what is required to defend an opinion or theory somewhat disturbing. And in my opinion, and I may be wrong here, but I really think that this lack of skill in supporting what they believe with solid evidence stems from their years of "Bible study". There are many, many differences of opinion in the church, and Bible scholars have spent two millenia splitting doctrinal hairs. And that is exactly how the debating occurs. All with the presupposition that the one Book is the principle source of truth and fountain of wisdom. Secondary sources are cool too, if they don't conflict with the Book. But there is no real field research, no real and substantial gathering of verifiable evidences. One doctrine is deemed more valid than another by an individual if he/she finds more favorable supporting verses from the SAME Book. And in many of these ongoing, unresolved doctrinal disputes (Which will never be resolved due to lack of clarity in this one Book), the one who comes across as "the winner" is not necessarily the one with the truth, but the one who is the better debater. And here is where men like Ken Hovind, and Ken Ham and their ilk come into the picture. They debate science in the same way that they debate the Scriptures: the winner is the one who can turn the cleverest phrase; it's not about verifiable and reproducible results, it's about verbal gymnastics. And many of the literalists have fallen into line, and come and debate here with the same shoot-from-the-hip style.
Sorry for the endless monologue, but I feel strongly about this, and wish that some of them would begin to understand "evidence" in the way the true scientist understands it.
Once again let me say that I mean no disrespect to the Creationists on a personal level. I really do respect your faith.
Thanks for letting me rant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-11-2006 7:12 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-12-2006 6:41 AM Aussie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 60 (363308)
11-11-2006 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by truthlover
11-11-2006 2:23 PM


It dates back 8,000 years. That's when farming started.
Make that ~11,000 years ago for agriculture and the first cities, ~8,000 years ago (~5800 B.C) for the first large walled city states {Ur) with the invention of the plow and "drafting" of animals.... IIRC.
I could only find part of what I was looking for:
Just a moment...
Ancient Mesopotamia: This History, Our History. Teaching Materials
It started in the hills above the flood plains not in the "fertile crescent" - and the climate then is also of interest: the lesser dryas.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by truthlover, posted 11-11-2006 2:23 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 52 of 60 (363331)
11-12-2006 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by truthlover
11-11-2006 2:23 PM


truthlover writes:
Yes, but isn't hate the problem there, and not religion?
Nope, the problem isn't all about hate. Yes, it has some to do with hate.
The problem is mostly about teaching/indoctrinating innocent children of issues that are still up for debate as truths. This includes deprivation of alternate views.
The other thing I want to point out is never once have the twin sisters said that they "hate" mud people. So, clearly, it's not about hate

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by truthlover, posted 11-11-2006 2:23 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 53 of 60 (363350)
11-12-2006 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Aussie
11-11-2006 9:25 PM


Fundamentalism Through the Looking-Glass
Aussie:
I know how ludicrous this sounds, but I really felt like I had a grip on science. I see the literalists debating here and sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. No matter how many well-prepared and precisely-delivered lists of evidence for evolution and an old Earth are presented, they just throw out a new turn of phrase, or another variant in their long list of rhetorical objections, and leave feeling as if they have adequately defended the faith.
You've surely noted the swagger creationists often display when they first arrive at EvC. They've imbibed the idea that 'God and I make a majority' so they burst into the saloon thinking they can whup any cowpoke in the place. Someone told them they're giants packing bazookas in a world of midgets squirting water pistols.
Then comes the collision with reality. Always fun to watch.
The confidence surely comes in part from the myth that science is 'really a religion.' This insistence (so bewildering to scientists) is crucial to fundamentalists. It creates the illusion of knowing.
They don't understand science at all. To them it's an unknown--a blank surface. But they understand how their religion works and how explanations are crafted in it. To be told science is like that gives them a sense of sure footing. They don't really know the terrain.
But blank surfaces are ideal for projecting.
In saying 'scientists are like us' they assume a mirror image of their own fundamentalism with left and right inverted. They debate not with real scientists, but with the mirror image.
What do they see when they look in the mirror? They tell you. It's a revealing picture.
No sooner do they decide 'science is a religion' than they start describing all the things they understand religion to be. They see people deciding all answers a priori. They see people conducting research that isn't open-minded and honest. They see arrogance and materialism. They see people ignoring, suppressing, or even forging evidence. They see a theocracy that refuses to allow dissent.
They are telling you how religions, in their experience, really do things. They disclose all the dirt about how fundamentalism works. Under normal curcumstances they would never ascribe these things to religious people. But let that religion go by another name and everything comes out. They point at the mirror and say 'You're a religion. We know what you're really doing!'

Give a man a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
- Oscar Wilde

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Aussie, posted 11-11-2006 9:25 PM Aussie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2006 7:36 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 60 (363355)
11-12-2006 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Archer Opteryx
11-12-2006 6:41 AM


Re: Fundamentalism Through the Looking-Glass
But they understand how their religion works and how explanations are crafted in it. To be told science is like that gives them a sense of sure footing.
Or the only methodology they have for thinking about things is the methodology of their religion, so they think it is the only way things are done.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-12-2006 6:41 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-12-2006 9:53 AM RAZD has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 55 of 60 (363369)
11-12-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
11-12-2006 7:36 AM


Re: Fundamentalism Through the Looking-Glass
RAZD:
Or the only methodology they have for thinking about things is the methodology of their religion, so they think it is the only way things are done.
Good point. We've had opportunities here to watch fundamentalists try to put forward their own theories. And they certainly go about it as if science operated by the methods of religion.
They think forming a theory is about inventing explanations. And you can see why. In Sunday School they stitched prootexts into a story and called it a doctrine. So in science they expect to stitch bits of data into a story and call it a theory. As soon as all the bits are assembled into a plausible story, mission accomplished. They have science!
They expect their story to be as valid as yours because, like your theories, it is an explanation. They expect it to be more true than yours because, like their doctrines, it conforms to religious orthodoxy. And it is work, trying to explain a mountain of scientific data in a way most o fthe world does not. A coherent alternative story is not crafted in one afternoon.
But even if they did this, they will have done no science yet. Scientists know no explanation can be called a theory until it demonstrates predictive power. Can we run tests? Can we predict findings?
Over and over you see fundamentalists here creating 'theories' who never once think of this. It never occurs to them that any theory they invent should be called upon to predict anything.
Why not? I think you hit it, RAZD. It's not necessary in religion. In religion the doctrine of the Trinity works because it explains all the prooftexts and meets the demands of orthodoxy. No one asks what tests to run on the Trinity or how to falsify the Trinity or how to predict what the Trinity will do next. Predictive power is not expected of a religious idea. So they don't expect it of their 'science.'
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2006 7:36 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2006 5:07 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 56 of 60 (363431)
11-12-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Aussie
11-10-2006 10:56 PM


Hey Aussie.
Welcome to EvC.
Definitely need to get down to Australia for a look-see in the next couple of years. Maybe I could swing myself a work contract out there...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Aussie, posted 11-10-2006 10:56 PM Aussie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 60 (363441)
11-12-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Archer Opteryx
11-12-2006 9:53 AM


Re: Fundamentalism Through the Looking-Glass
answered here: Message 49 - to keep this thread from being pulled off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-12-2006 9:53 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 60 (363447)
11-12-2006 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aussie
11-09-2006 2:11 PM


possible column?
The last ten years have been an interesting journey of learning for me, and EvC is my new "Favorite thing to read" online. I look forward to continuing to read, and perhaps participate in this awesome forum.
This place is addictive ... and the rides not over yet.
Learning is a life-long journey, an accumulation of footsteps on a path we did not always know we were taking.
I wanted to investigate the timeline of Noah's flood and compare it against the known timelines that we have of ancient civilizations. I wanted to be able to point to a definite time in history and say "Look--here is when the flood happened, and this is the break in the historical chronologies."
The answer to that was big surprise number one for me, and the beginning of more than a few questions.
It might be interesting to have you do a thread on this topic and the reasons for your conclusions. A couple of possibilities: You've already done the work eh? So it would just be a matter of putting it together into solid format, in your words.
Who knows where those footprints lead.
Enjoy
ps - welcome to the fray.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aussie, posted 11-09-2006 2:11 PM Aussie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 60 (363449)
11-12-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Archer Opteryx
11-11-2006 7:12 PM


Re: welcome!
I wonder how many people have overthrown their indoctrination in pseudoscience in a way similar to yours: doing research with the inital expectation of finding support for it. Quite a few, I expect.
This is why I can't help but wonder if allowing ID wouldn't encourage more young people to take a good hard scientific look. Perhaps an optional class? The law of political irony eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-11-2006 7:12 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 60 of 60 (363457)
11-12-2006 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aussie
11-09-2006 2:11 PM


Welome aboard mate. Always good to see another Aussie around, even if you've left our shores for bigger things. Me, I like my 4 weeks leave per year so I'm staying put for now!
I post here rarely but lurk regularly, and I agree it's a very enjoyable forum to read.
Its good that you were able to break through the fundy propaganda and dishonesty through your own interest and research. The number of people who swallow creationist rubbish without thinking is quite alarming. Glad to see someone escaped!
Carry on sir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aussie, posted 11-09-2006 2:11 PM Aussie 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