128
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 10:53 pm
@High Strangeness,
The bible treated women as property.
Japan was a backward country concerning women as were many other countries of the world.
What's your point?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 10:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here: Get some education about the 21st century.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2008/03/08/ten_worst_countries_for_women.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Japanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Japan

How old are you? 14?
0 Replies
 
High Strangeness
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
..The bible treated women as property..

There are two parts to the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The New T is a new "operating system" for the human race just like Windows 10 is the latest computer OS..Smile
The New T says-
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28 )

Anyway the Old T can be pro-women when it wants to, as shown by this verse-
"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will preach, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. On my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will speak." (Joel 2:28-32)

0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 04:16 am
@High Strangeness,
I am not ashamed of my simple mind my friend, it keeps me fresh and open to new information.

When you read the bible, do you read it holistically or do you pick out the "stories"? Many of your speculations appear to ignore what is written. For instance, I can't imagine a space ship made of cypress wood planks and tar to be very effective, and it strikes me as unlikely Noah sent a DNA sample of a Raven and a Dove to see if the "economic pressures" had drained?

The reason I assumed you hadn't read the Hebrew scriptures is your accounting from it appeared to be far less accurate and specific than your accounting of the Gospels. I shall refrain from any such assumptions and engage conversation accordingly.
High Strangeness
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 10:25 am
@Smileyrius,
Quote:
..I am not ashamed of my simple mind my friend, it keeps me fresh and open to new information..

Good, a simple uncluttered mind like ours means we don't get sidetracked into the sort of hardcore bible study that fundies are fond of..Smile
I call them "spiritual snobs" because they think they know more than the rest of us, that's how cults and sects develop because they take a bunch of obscure verses and build a "religion" around them in disobedience of this advice from Paul-
"I'm worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)
And Jesus told the snooty priests to get their noses out of their heavyweight theological books-
"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39/40)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 07:46 pm
@hingehead,
pulled into a marina with "plug in wifi" (whatever the hell thats supposed to mean)
I got a lugh over the Biblical stratigrphy.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 07:53 pm
@Leadfoot,
I was sittin here and checking . I ont see qhere Fla even allows for "off grid" solar. PA only allows it for the "separatist religions like Severe Mennonotes and house Amish. ll others MUST be hooked to the grid and are automatically shut down during power outages.
I sw in the Uniform Building Codes in Fla, that its even required to be connected to public water at some really inreasonable distnces. (In the NE, if youre >150 ft from a public water line, you may use a well or cistern(or buffaloes ).

I could not fond anything about solar hookups in Fla that is as youve said. Im not calling you, I just would like to read the wording because of personal needs for Maine.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 02:32 am
@farmerman,
Being able to give you a smile is one of the good things about a2k.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 05:05 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I got a lugh over the Biblical stratigrphy.



Not sure if this is what you were referring to,

Quote:
The rumour last week that 86% of us may not be the star sign we thought caused panic on some social media networks. So many people believed the story because is was said to come from Nasa. But how did one of the world's most respected aeronautics institutions get dragged into the topic of astrology - the study that predicts the future through the position of the stars?

Well, it started when Cosmopolitan magazine discussed a Nasa post that was aimed at children. Nasa's Space Place blog explained how the ancient Babylonians, some 3,000 years ago, believed that the movement of the constellations may have affected events on Earth. Their calendar forms the basis of the zodiac which we know today. Since Babylonian times the positions of the stars have changed, though - a fact that is well known.

But Cosmopolitan took this to mean that Nasa had changed the dates assigned to star signs. It also picked up on a few sentences discussing Ophiuchus, a 13th "forgotten" constellation in the zodiac.
The magazine thought Ophiuchus was now "back in the game" and that some people were actually born under this star sign rather than the one they had always thought.

This was not the kind of news some social media users took to kindly.


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/A227/production/_91311514_tattootweet.jpg

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/F047/production/_91311516_newzodiac.jpg


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37419182
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 06:09 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I was sittin here and checking . I ont see qhere Fla even allows for "off grid" solar. PA only allows it for the "separatist religions like Severe Mennonotes and house Amish. ll others MUST be hooked to the grid and are automatically shut down during power outages.
I sw in the Uniform Building Codes in Fla, that its even required to be connected to public water at some really inreasonable distnces. (In the NE, if youre >150 ft from a public water line, you may use a well or cistern(or buffaloes ).

I could not fond anything about solar hookups in Fla that is as youve said. Im not calling you, I just would like to read the wording because of personal needs for Maine
The idea of 'not allowing' off grid solar in Florida (or anywhere else) is such a ludicrous concept that I would say you are making that up. But in view of some of the crazy water laws out west (you can't capture rain water in CO) I suppose that's possible.

As I I told you before, my FL system is grid tied, and yes, it has to meet the automatic shutdown requirements which I think are universal. That system is in an area served by an electric coop which buys power from other FL power companies and services the local infrastructure. They are exempt from whatever rules exis in FL so I don't know what they currently are. They are up for change in the nov election with a couple of ballot initiatives.

My coop had some crazy requirements including buying a liability insurance policy ($100,000) for the system with them as the beneficiary. There were many other dumb things like that, all designed to discourage installation including using certain contractors. (I did my own) . I threatened to write letters to the PSC and news papers complaining of their anti renewable energy policies and they left me alone ( except for installing that non reversing meter I mentioned before). There are grid tied systems that do have battery backup if you require that. They also disconnect from the mains in the event of power loss.

As for the off grid system in CO, I don't believe there are laws forbidding it but I'd confront anyone who tried to stop me with physical violence. The line has to be drawn somewhere. You decide where yours is.
0 Replies
 
spooky24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 11:11 am
@cicerone imposter,
Oh really!

Since you know it all I will tell you that religion is the only reason that humans (Sapiens) survived. Without the bonding effects of communal belief in an afterlife we would never started to bury our dead or bond in a common goal. That goal is survival and without it our species of Homo would have become extinct just like all the others did.
Everybody is born someones son or Daughter is another crock. We can transplant unknown embryos in to other women and the child born will have neither a father or a mother.
The term 'test tube babies' is major out of style but is used to all over the globe as conception and thousands of babies around the world are born without a mother or father every single day.

We have been doing it with cattle and horses for thousands of years. The purebred bull in the pasture out back was artificial in it's conception. I should know as I was the one that conceived and planted the embryo. The conception sperm is a collection of the breed you are propagating. The heifer that bore the calf was simply used as an incubator and it's genetic markers will not be reused.
Reproduction (or procreation or breeding) is a biological process and biology is not the study of reproduction-it is the study of that process.
catbeasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 12:30 pm
@spooky24,
Quote:
Since you know it all I will tell you that religion is the only reason that humans (Sapiens) survived

Conjecture..completely unknowable..however, it appears other animals survive it (assuming they are non-religious). Also, non religious communities survive today..granted they are small..but so were our original tribes. The question might be better framed as could we survive without what underpines our religious bent? (need for purpose, fright mitigation etc)..

Quote:
Without the bonding effects of communal belief in an afterlife we would never started to bury our dead or bond in a common goal

Conjecture..evidence is not clear as to why this started..yes, associated with religion, but could have started for other reasons (cleanliness for example)..

Quote:
Everybody is born someones son or Daughter is another crock.

Depends on how you are defining mother or father - biologically or socially?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 12:56 pm
@spooky24,
https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-is-responsible-for-the-greatest-number-of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 01:40 pm
@catbeasy,
Would it then be correct to assume thhat our "pre hominin" cousin genera must have been religious in order that they would have survived in order to produce H s.s descendents?
catbeasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 05:45 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Would it then be correct to assume thhat our "pre hominin" cousin genera must have been religious in order that they would have survived in order to produce H s.s descendents?

That's an interesting question. I don't know of a specific answer to that, though it appears there are many theories. But your question is almost impossible to answer considering we don't know if we even need religion to survive currently, never mind in a past that covers millennia!

I do think that without what under pines religion, we are at the least in psychological trouble. And who knows why that even started? Could have been a side effect of some other facility? Its all very bizarre but that's just a shortcut to me admitting that I can't have that knowledge and the confusion it produces regarding answers to these questions that we're screwed for!

Currently reading a book by Leakey (the son) on the differing 'punctuated' human vs gradual human development theories. The book was written in the mid 90's but I believe the debate has not since been settled if the blurbs I've read here and there are indicative of the current state of the debate.

As you might guess:

Punctuated basically states that the earliest ancestors we would consider part of our family tree (which would start with the australopithecines) had pretty much all of the traits we consider human which would include religion, language (in my opinion language = religion) etc. This occurred relatively fast.

The gradual theory is that the transformation took place in steps, first bi-pedal, crude tool development, then language, then religion, etc..with large gaps of time in between each development..

I believe the Gradual theory, till further evidence, currently has more weight and would indicate that our pre sapien ancestors wouldn't necessarily have to have had religion (with the exception of the Neanderthals)..
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 06:15 pm
@catbeasy,
I was just sorta checking my navel wrt that question. The poster , so certain of his "facts" needed a bit of speculation that extended his logic to its nascent state.
I have no idea either but Id like to see the evidence of which hes certain.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 06:21 pm
@catbeasy,
Im a little familiar with the PE hypothesis. Seems that some of Goulds own students had punched some data holes in PE, from field sites where Gould and Eldredge, served up PE as a , then, "theory". Some of the evidence regarding the stratigraphy had called into question whether pe was demonstrated from their key fossils fossils (brachiopods).
catbeasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 10:19 pm
@farmerman,
Yes, I'm cursorily familiar with the attacks on Gould's theory; translation: I only know it has been attacked, but otherwise don't know jack squat!

However, the idea remains a possibility with humans or anything that evidence hasn't shown otherwise..but then again, I'm partial to Gould, as a writer at least..have you read his book The Mismeasure Of Man? Swipe on the misuse/abuse of science to support racial eugenics and racially based discriminatory policies as well as a good expose on what science is and by default isn't..

And yeah, I thought your response to me might have been a sideways glance at the other dude's post..!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2016 11:06 pm
@catbeasy,
yeh. I like Gould's popular writing . He made the science interesting. (His textbook style is , however, abysmal. I used to teach a field methods in stratigraphy and paleo and we used several of his tech papers and his :The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (The text wasnt my idea I was an adjunct at the time since I left teaching for consulting and was sorta "told what texts we would use").
Gould's "Structure..." was as poorly organized a mish mash of a mind dump as Ive ever read. Ive always made negative comments against Dawkins because of his views about "the religious". However, Dawkins, at least was clear , focused and clear in his wording and in precisely fitting his ideas into a comprehensive narrative.
Gould would just blather on. I could never figure out why he would write his popular stuff so well, but then he'd just blow smoke up the readers ass in his technical writing.

catbeasy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2016 10:29 am
@farmerman,
I haven't read Gould's technical writing, just the aforementioned book and various essays on evolution/biology. Regarding his bad organization, perhaps he realized his technical papers weren't going to be a best seller..?

I read Dawkins book The God Delusion. Though I agree with much of his logic, I don't like his tone about religion either. His conclusion that religion is a delusion seems antithetical to getting people to "his side" and seems to me to be just plain wrong. Perhaps he realized that his former "softer" side got fewer views..
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/13/2020 at 10:30:57