rysie wrote:Absolutely.

I am just working on some meaningless trivia shit threads now.

You guys are so lucky to have me.

How about an EA online Trival Pursuit kind of thing sans abortion debates and religious nuts? I say something to do with BBC sci-fi programmes from the 70s and 80s!

piece out -of your ass-

wow first of, i repeat what gramsci said: in most countries outside of usa there is no such subject of a serious discussion as IC or creationism.
i was chatting with my g/f when i was reading this first thread first , i gave her the link for the essay posted by mark lansign, she said said she cannot believe this, and she mailed this to two people she was chatting with. mind you, we live in poland, the most catholic country in europe.. and even here the right wingers who repeat at every occasion how much do they respect the catholic church, how deep their faith is blah blah do not even mention adding creationism to school programs. not that they like to see this happend but they keep their mouth shut, they dont talk about it cause even they know it's bullshit. EVERYONE knows it's bullshit, or at least so i thought, but this thread proves i was wrong.
sorry for thsi ranting but the first time i heard about creationism was about 6 years ago, i was in subway on my way home, and and old lady who sat next to me (i was standing) started to read an ultra right wing newspaper, which is noone but old ladies takes seriously (or so i thougt). i started to lurk above her shoulder and i read that there are proves the earth was created 6000 years ago but the scientific world is full of evil folks who know this is the truth, but they make money thanks to this stupid evolution theory, so they hide proves for the creationism theory, i started to laugh out loud.
next guy i met who believed in this was an uber-ortothodox catholic who had nothing but books about the bible in his room.
and now i read this guy named gorge w. bush supports teaching this in shcools. WOW.
or maybe i should read more carefully what those local rightwingers say, they're gaining popularity.. and they are closely connected with the newspaper mentioned above... uh.




and now something more contructive:

almost each time people talk about the (non)existance of god someone comes up with "you can't prove that he does exists and you cant prove that he doesn't". it is a mistake. if god exists we can imagine that there is a way to prove it. we can also imagine that he exists but there is no way to prove it, and only in this case we can talk about the actual faith in god, otherwise it would be common knowledge (like noone asks you if you believe in the existance of sun).
but if the god doesn't exists there is no way to prove it. the only proof is the lack of proves for the case. just like in the gramsci's "You can't prove I don't have a translucent lion shaped spirit guide called Norman" example.
davesec' "if you told me you have a translucent lion shaped spirit guide called Norman, i would say "you are stupid, you can't prove that" is the most obvious thing we can say. but then gramsci says "you're stupid, you can't prove that i don't have a translucent...". and this would be wrong, cause as long as he doesn't show us any proofs that he has Norman, he will not have any right to expect us to believe him. i don't think anyone will disagree on this.
so why people expect we would act diffrently when we're talking about a Transcendental Creature Which Is So Much Smarter Than Us We Cant Undeststand It a.k.a. God? oh yes cause there are so many believers its just impossible they are all wrong. so "eat shit, gazylions of flies can't be wrong"

so telling an atheist "you can't prove that god doesnt exist" is not an serious argument, actually it does't make any sense. the only actual meaning of it is "well you can not explain <put somethinh in here> , but it happens, so there has to be some higher creature behind it" but this is clearly "making shit up", and this is not what people mean when they say it. and who told that science can explain everything, in the first place??

oh and toomanyhelictopters wrote about science telling whether something is true or false, and i agree with this, and relighion telling whether something is right on wrong - well obviously religions tells you this, but this sentence may seem like around way of saying "human without religion may not know what is right or wrong, and therefore is blind". i disagree with it - philiosophy may tell you what is wrong or right, and it has better arguments to back it up than "well this book says so, and it also says that the god said so, and it also says that everything that god says is true so im sure this is true and if you disagree, you're going to hell, and this book says the hell is not a pleasent place, so you better agree with me" (i know i used this in other thread but it fits well here).

oh and despite what those fanatics say you can support big bang theory, evolution, you can even believe that universe is way older than 6000 years and still be a good christian. at least thats what vatican says, and in this case i think they know better.
so
teaching crationism as a science, no matter the place = crap
teaching creationism in public schools = wow dude, uber crap
teaching creationism in public schools as the part of the science lessons = so absolutely amazingly totally crappy it makes me cry.

this thread made me buy a book on evolution. it's called 'the blind watchmaker' by richard dawkins and is really really good. it pretty much picks apart creationism and explains everything.

he uses a really simple example for ID.. he says if you were placed on a planet and were walking around and you saw a watch on the ground, you would naturally assume someone made that watch because it's so complicated. then he says that because the human body is trillions of times more complex than a watch, it's natural for people to assume that someone had to have had a hand in making it, and that evolution could never create something so complex. then he shows how easy it is for evolution to do this, and how absurd it is to think that there was an intelligent designer.

right now i'm reading the chapter about how sonar develops in bats, it's fascinating!

emmanuelle cunt wrote:oh and toomanyhelictopters wrote about science telling whether something is true or false, and i agree with this, and relighion telling whether something is right on wrong - well obviously religions tells you this, but this sentence may seem like around way of saying "human without religion may not know what is right or wrong, and therefore is blind". i disagree with it - philiosophy may tell you what is wrong or right, and it has better arguments to back it up than "well this book says so, and it also says that the god said so, and it also says that everything that god says is true so im sure this is true and if you disagree, you're going to hell, and this book says the hell is not a pleasent place, so you better agree with me" (i know i used this in other thread but it fits well here).

i once saw a debate between Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes about the role of morality in a modern civilized society. Keyes took the religious nutjob position, and came across like an idiot. Dershowitz made a very strong case that people acting ethically *without* religion is worth so much more than people acting ethically *with* religion. because with religion, people do "right" because they feel they have to, and because they are told to do so. but without religion, people do "right" because they know it's the "right" thing to do.

religion and philosophy can be almost interchangable at times. the key difference, i think, is that anybody is entitled to make up their own philosophy about anything and everything, and with religion it's a little harder for everybody out there to start up their own religion. philosophy can exist without any sort of god in the picture (though it often includes some pondering of or acknowleding of god) but religion cannot. in either case though, there is no real proof. philosophies, like religions, are held personally, and are not subject to fact-checking. science is the realm of facts.

something i think people might consider... y'all are relying on humanity to be moral and make good decisions in a world free of religion... do you really think that's how it would work out? do you believe that? you're basically saying you want to rely on every jackass out there (the vast majority of which believe in God and religion, which by your words makes the insane and idiotic -- this is the vast majority of people) and you're gonna cut them free to go with whatever they think is best, in their own opinion, rather than having them tag along with the morals and virtues that they learned from their religious texts and religious leaders... you're going to cut loose these insane idiots and then trust them to steer society... what am i missing?

my personal view is simply that humans were secreted from the bosom of the Life Mother, whose divine magma "sin copters" circle us at all points in our digression, and blast away the perpetrators of "Time Fraud" with lasers.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:something i think people might consider... y'all are relying on humanity to be moral and make good decisions in a world free of religion... do you really think that's how it would work out? do you believe that? you're basically saying you want to rely on every jackass out there (the vast majority of which believe in God and religion, which by your words makes the insane and idiotic -- this is the vast majority of people) and you're gonna cut them free to go with whatever they think is best, in their own opinion, rather than having them tag along with the morals and virtues that they learned from their religious texts and religious leaders... you're going to cut loose these insane idiots and then trust them to steer society... what am i missing?

"Cut loose"? From what? Are you seriously looking at those who currently "steer society" and thinking that they are in any way restrained by Christian (or otherwise religious) commandments? Let's take the current president, for example. Can you think of a single instance involving him about which we can say, "Thank goodness he is a born-again, Bible believing Christian; if he were cut lose from those moral teachings, who knows what he might have done instead?"?

larsxe wrote:

steve wrote:Science is a method, not an orthodoxy. It has no agenda.

True, but unlike the days of Archimedes, science today co-exists with technology and is inseparable from it.

I think it would be more productive to replace "technology" with "capitalism." We're cooking our planet not because science gave rise to the internal combustion engine, etc, but because capital demands overconsumption and prevents us, as a species, from making intelligent decisions about how to live. The amount of human labour and scientific resources devoted to designing bigger, faster, shinier, and, ultimately, more pernicious things is a function of political economy not science itself.

The great thing about scientific inquiry in-itself is that it is not ideological. It isn't idealistic, it's realistic in the best sense of the term.

However, corporate funding of universities and researchers fucks all this up and does so on purpose.


Just 2 days ago I spoke to a friend who is midway through a PhD in biology at the University of British Columbia. He is studying vegetative changes in the arctic (or more specifically the region in the Northwest Territories where tundra is retreating at the advance of shrubby boreal vegetation.). His research isn't particulary bankable; getting funding for climate change-related research is problem in a department which, as he says, "oozes corporate dollars from every sponsored drinking fountain in every hall."

Conversely, I know two other people who've already graduated with PhDs in the sciences and one works for Shell/Mobile and the other the American military. They make loads of coin but I think the work they do is a disgrace to their discipline. It is science against itself.

Science sides with truth (however provisional truths may be) and as such the powers-that-be have an uneasy relation with it. Look at the Bush admin's environmental policies. Completely fucking irrational. Just stupid. Myopic. A complete disavowal of science.

And this, this, is part of what makes being on the Left satisfying: we fight for human intelligence rather than against it (Ha. My posts are so predictable: Capitalism = dumb).

But to bring it back, the creationism-in-schools debate is just another example of how the men in the high towers enlist ideology and its attendant obfuscations to counter truth. Such naughty, naughty men, them guys with power. Science, though, is fantastic. Go Science!

emanuelle cunt wrote:wow first of, i repeat what gramsci said: in most countries outside of usa there is no such subject of a serious discussion as IC or creationism.

There is. In Holland. No, seriously. We surpressed roman catholics succesfully for hundreds of years, and now that they are finally set free, they start shit like this.

its1 2:26 AM local time, way to late to write what i wanted to, but i was going to say eariler that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is right on the spot... and absolutely hilarious.

i just got an email tonight from my grandpa, and thought i'd share it as for me at least, it reaffirms my assertion that there are people out there who make at least some sort of association between technology (products of science) and the shit state of affairs in the world today.

i definitely don't agree with every specific point the writer makes (my grandpa rarely writes, he only forwards, because he types like 2 words a minute) but then again i'm more open-minded about a lot of things, moreso than my perception of the average 80+ year old anyways...

-----------------------------------

I MUST ADMIT THAT THE ANSWER AT THE END SHOCKED ME!



How old is Grandma?




Stay with this -- the answer is at the end -- it will blow you away.

One evening a grandson was talking to his grandmother about current events. The grandson asked his grandmother what she thought about the shootings at schools, the computer age, and just things in general.

The Grandma replied, "Well, let me think a minute, I was born before:

§ television,

§ penicillin,

§ polio shots,

§ frozen foods,

§ Xerox,

§ contact lenses,

§ Frisbees and

§ the pill.

There was no:

§ radar,

§ credit cards,

§ laser beams or

§ ball-point pens.

Man had not invented:

§ pantyhose,

§ air conditioners,

§ dishwashers,

§ clothes dryers,

§ and the clothes were hung out to dry in the fresh air and

§ man hadn't yet walked on the moon.



Your Grandfather and I got married first-and then lived together.

Every family had a father and a mother.

Until I was 25, I called every man older than I, 'Sir'- and after I turned 25, I still called policemen and every man with a title, "Sir.'

We were before gay-rights, computer- dating, dual careers, daycare centers, and group therapy.

Our lives were governed by the Ten Commandments, good judgment, and common sense.

We were taught to know the difference between right and wrong and to stand up and take responsibility for our actions.

Serving your country was a privilege; living in this country was a bigger privilege.

We thought fast food was what people ate during Lent.

Having a meaningful relationship meant getting along with your cousins.

Draft dodgers were people who closed their front doors when the evening breeze started.

Time-sharing meant time the family spent together in the evenings and weekends-not purchasing condominiums.



We never heard of FM radios, tape decks, CDs, electric typewriters, yogurt, or guys wearing earrings.

We listened to the Big Bands, Jack Benny, and the President's speeches on our radios.

And I don't ever remember any kid blowing his brains out listening to Tommy Dorsey.

If you saw anything with 'Made in Japan ' on it, it was junk.

The term 'making out' referred to how you did on your school exam.

Pizza Hut, McDonald's, and instant coffee were unheard of.

We had 5 &10-cent stores where you could actually buy things for 5 and 10 cents.

Ice-cream cones, phone calls, rides on a streetcar, and a Pepsi were all a nickel.

And if you didn't want to splurge, you could spend your nickel on enough stamps to mail 1 letter and 2 postcards.

You could buy a new Chevy Coupe for $600 but who could afford one?

Too bad, because gas was 11 cents a gallon.

In my day:

§ "grass" was mowed,

§ "coke" was a cold drink,

§ "pot" was something your mother cooked in and

§ "rock music" was your grandmother's lullaby.

§ "Aids" were helpers in the Principal's office,

§ " chip" meant a piece of wood,

§ "hardware" was found in a hardware store and

§ "software" wasn't even a word.




And we were the last generation to actually believe that a lady needed a husband to have a baby. No wonder people call us "old and confused" and say there is a generation gap... and how old do you think I am?

I bet you have this old lady in mind...you are in for a shock!

Read on to see -- pretty scary if you think about it and pretty sad at the same time.




This Woman would be only 58 years old!



Have A Great Day /tl