Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Empire, Secret Empire, and responsibility for how your work is used.

   
Author Topic: Empire, Secret Empire, and responsibility for how your work is used.
Shanon1331
Member
Member # 12786

 - posted      Profile for Shanon1331   Email Shanon1331         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My original post was rediculously long, which I noticed after finishing it. I cant just delete it as only the forum leader can do that. But I can go back and write the same point shorter.
Just wanted to explain since the response messages wont correspond any longer.

I just finished reading the Empire series and I have to say that being a major fan of Mr. Cards due to the Alvin series, I'm pretty dissapointed in his portrayal of the left and the ways he compares it to the right.

Global Warming, though now called climate change, is not based on imaginary science. Its based on very real science and despite what many would believe, the 95 percent of credible climate scientists in the world, that group who tell us that we are in fact heating up the globe and threatening life and ecosystems, are actually taking all the facts into account, even the ones that would threaten their findings. Its called the scientific method.

Secondly, I read many statements such as that the left has a great deal of control over our media, our Judicial system, etc...

We have 5 a republican majority appointed by mostly republican presidents on the supreme court, the highest court in the land. Thus, corporations are considered by that court to be "individuals" with a bill of rights to protect their "free speech", meaning donations to buy our politicians that the other 99 percent of us could not possibly hope to match. And while the Bush admin was reponsible for lie after lie, crime after crime, evil after evil, he was all but untouchable in the media. If you saw through his B.S. like most of America did, you would have had no doubt that the media is not even slightly left. Obama, who is considered left wing, though not by me, is attacked and attacked by the media in a way Bush would never have been attacked.

I agree with much of what Mr. Card had to say in his ideas about how people must stop attacking and labeling eachother if we are going to make it in the long run, but please God let it be a progressive social democratic government in which the common man comes before the dollar bill. Because until those at the top who hold all the dollar bills are held accountable for intentionally dividing us through lies and propaganda and corrupt politicians and obscenely one sided policies, we are not going to have that which Mr. Card is speaking of. And God I wish there was such a thing as a left wing in this country, fighting for real social justice and equality of all men and women.

[ March 03, 2012, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Shanon1331 ]

Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a really large wall of text...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the irony, Shannon (and yes, I read about 90% of your wall of text):

You just *know* that global warming is real and man-made. You've studied the data, for gosh sakes! And yet... All of the data we have is based on approximately 150 years worth of observation. 150 years is a tiny speck when compared to the history of earth. Yet somehow, from data from a tiny speck, you just *know* that he is wrong.

Let me tell you a parable. There once was a boy who had never seen a tree before because he lived in an underground shelter. One day in early autumn, he ventured outside and walked until he found it - a tall oak tree. He was amazed at the tree - at the foliage, the height, the reach of the branches. He instantly loved the tree, because he saw how majestic it was. He ran his hand up and down the rough bark and sat under the shade the rest of the day.

He went home and slept, and the next day, he decided to go outside and see the tree again. But when he got there, he was appalled. There were leaves on the ground around the tree! "Surely," he told himself, "I caused this. The leaves weren't on the ground yesterday - they were on the branches. I must have done something." So he ran away and cried.

The next day, hoping against hope that the tree was better, he visited again, only to find more dead leaves on the ground! "I don't know how to stop this," he said, "but I will come back in a month. Maybe that is enough time for the tree to heal from my poisonous touch."

So he waited a month, anxious to find out if the harm he had caused the tree was irreparable. But when he finally went to visit the tree again, he was dismayed to see that it was now completely bare, with most of the leaves gone, scattered to the wind. He wept, truly and deeply, for the harm he had caused to the tree. He made a vow, then and there, to never go near a tree again as long as he lived. He spent the rest of his life inside his bunker, broken from the knowledge of what he had done.

----

This boy had no concept of the changes a tree goes through over time. He had no concept of what a tree needs to survive or how outside forces can affect a tree. He based his "knowledge" on a small, personal interaction at a specific point in time. He *knew* that the loss of leaves was a direct result of his touch. It was obvious.

But we know better. It was autumn. Trees lose their leaves in the autumn. It's an annual cycle. The truth is, the boy had some information, but not enough to make a wise, informed observation. He didn't even know enough to know that he didn't know enough.

Do you see the parallels?

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
All of the data we have is based on approximately 150 years worth of observation.

Absolutely false.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ZachC
Member
Member # 12709

 - posted      Profile for ZachC   Email ZachC         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ill agree that there are some things that we still do not know about our world, but seriously, have you actually SEEN the data? The levels of CO2 and the temperature in our atmosphere are easily the highest they have ever been, and that is data easily over 150 years of observation, try 150 million! This is a problem that should not be ignored!
The scientists that study global warming easily have enough data to conclude that global warming is a phenomenon that has never happened to the earth, and if it continues, disastrous results will follow

Posts: 82 | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanon1331
Member
Member # 12786

 - posted      Profile for Shanon1331   Email Shanon1331         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. Yes, it is quite a wall. Little frustrated as you can see. However, after I posted it I thought, "Damn, thats long!" However, I'm assuming most people here actually read books, and thats much longer.


Look, I have no problem with asking ourselves, are we assuming instead of actually looking at actual evidence?
Let me just make clear on that. As I said, the Earth is coming out of a mini ice age. Also, there is alot of evidence that all of the planets are heating up a little right now. Also, we certainly are experiencing an increase in photons in this part of space through which our solar system is passing through. Photons tend to increase the vibrational speed of matter, and that tends to increase energy temperatures.
Plus, aside from coming out of a mini ice age, the earth is also moving away from a mega ice age still, and has been for many thousands of years.
So, it is reasonable to assume that the earth SHOULD BE HEATING UP RIGHT NOW. Not yelling, just emphasising the point that I'm not looking at some tree and assuming that even though its fall, my looking at the tree isnt whats making the leaves fall. But heres the thing, what you are failing to consider is that we arent just looking at or touching the tree. We are literally interfering with the environment around it on a massive level. Its like me coming into your living room and dumping a bunch of garbage and then saying, your house would stink anyway because humans tend to sweat and get B.O. and humans live here. Then you look at me and say, "Dude, you just dumped a shit load of smelly garbage in my room." How intellegent is it for me to say, "I'm sorry, but there is no scientific evidence to show that the smell of your home has anything to do with that big pile of garbage. After all, all of the garbage comes from the earth, right? And the earth doesn't stink. In fact, rotting food turns into dirt and dirt sustains life, so really I've just helped your home to sustain more life. And in the meantime, I make a killing getting rid of this garbage. We all win."?


The thing is, yes the Earth is in a warming phase, and has been for thousands of years, and part of it even more for the last 350 or so years, but that doesn't mean it can take anything we throw at it.
Everything that a few of you just said, and I'm sure some of it has to do with defending Mr. Card, is based in assumption. That is what burns me to begin with. Mr. Card is clearly intellegent enough to know that assumptions never help anyone. I can help but wonder if maybe the point he was making is that the facts really dont matter, just the way we deal with eachother. But the facts do matter. Putting more emphasis on facts will help us to get on the same page. The problem comes when people decide to throw facts out the window, pretend our actions dont effect anyone else, and become irresponsible for what we do.



Let me put it this way. Lets say 25 years from now we wake up and suddenly the earth is beginning to cool again, and we havent reduced any carbon emmission levels. In fact, they have continued to increase. And suddenly the facts have come full circle to meet your assumptions that we arent heating the Earth.
Then all of us who want to protect our childrens environment are proven to be a bunch of what?
People who did the math, looked at the science, and took seriously our responsibility to safegaurd against threats to our children's future.
New science disproves quite sound old science at an increasing rate throughout history. If we just threw it all out the door as unreliable we wouldnt have moved out of the dark ages.



The Earth is heating up at an increasing rate and the actual science says it is not only us causing, but that the Earth cant handle it and remain the Earth that we know, but that is not the point in my "wall".
I thought about deleting the whole thing after I wrote it. What is the point? I live in an age when even people I consider to be great minds are abandoning reason for the ease of following along in a destructive direction chosen not by man, but by a small group of people who use the media and wealth and corrupt politicians to line their own pockets and ensure their own security and comfort without regard for us "useless eaters" at the bottom. It is hard to have hope, and I am angry. I put faith and hope in Mr. Card, and I just got slapped down. Childish of me I suppose.


Hell, just dont read it. It was more for him anyway. More for me, to be honest.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
All of the data we have is based on approximately 150 years worth of observation.

Absolutely false.
Really?! When was the thermometer invented, pray tell... I'll tell you when: in the 1600s. And for the first 200 years they existed, they were used in isolated, specific instances, not in spot-checking global temperatures.

The FACT is, we have only been seriously observing global temperature patterns for 100 years, give or take, and only doing it in a precise, controlled manner for about 50 years.

To say that this is "absolutely false" shows ignorance.

Or to put it another way, what was the average temperature in Venice, Italy in 1777? You can't tell me? Why not? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT DATA.

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shannon - I appreciate your passion and your well-formed opinions. Even if we disagree on the evidence, it's nice to see someone who can speak intelligently about their own opinions.

:-)

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
All of the data we have is based on approximately 150 years worth of observation.

Absolutely false.
Really?! When was the thermometer invented, pray tell... I'll tell you when: in the 1600s. And for the first 200 years they existed, they were used in isolated, specific instances, not in spot-checking global temperatures.

The FACT is, we have only been seriously observing global temperature patterns for 100 years, give or take, and only doing it in a precise, controlled manner for about 50 years.

To say that this is "absolutely false" shows ignorance.

Or to put it another way, what was the average temperature in Venice, Italy in 1777? You can't tell me? Why not? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT DATA.

It's possible that you meant that we've been taking measurements for something like 150 years, in which case, that's pretty much true, but it seems like you are saying that we only have measurements of the past 150 years, which is absolutely false.

The field of paleoclimatology has come up with many ways of measuring what the temperature was in the past.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for that clarification, MrSquicky.

I stand by my quote: all of the data we have is based on approximately 150 years worth of "observation."

We've only been observing and recording temperatures for that long. And while paleoclimatology is interesting as an idea, for someone who believes in the Bible, it is not too useful.

For example, I believe the entire earth was flooded as recorded in the story of Noah. If that's true, then gathering data from glaciers, sediments, rock strata, etc. is inaccurate. If the flood really happened, it would have completely altered everything and made it impossible to judge timeframes. For instance, one facet of paleoclimatology is examining air bubbles in glaciers; if there was a flood, then the glaciers we see today either formed after it, or they were completely submerged. Either way, a modern scientists' assumptions about their composition would be skewed.

And no, I'm not trying to push buttons - I really do believe in the great flood and the Bible.

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For example, I believe the entire earth was flooded as recorded in the story of Noah. If that's true, then gathering data from glaciers, sediments, rock strata, etc. is inaccurate. If the flood really happened, it would have completely altered everything and made it impossible to judge timeframes. For instance, one facet of paleoclimatology is examining air bubbles in glaciers; if there was a flood, then the glaciers we see today either formed after it, or they were completely submerged. Either way, a modern scientists' assumptions about their composition would be skewed.

And no, I'm not trying to push buttons - I really do believe in the great flood and the Bible.

I don't see how that follows. If the great flood occurred according to natural processes, then it would either be observable and thus the distortions introduced by it would be controllable or it would be a negligible event that wouldn't affect things. Alternatively, it could have been an instance of divine magic that did not affect the world the way a natural flood would have, in which case all bets are off, but the "doesn't actually effect things" seems like a pretty likely option.

It seems to me that you weren't aware of paleoclimatology prior to me mentioning it. If so, it seems like immediately dismissing the entire field without even trying to see if it addressed your criticism doesn't make all that much sense. For example, this statement: "If the flood really happened, it would have completely altered everything and made it impossible to judge timeframes." How do you know that?

To me, that seems more like someone who is starting with want they want to believe, not someone who is looking at the evidence to see what it indicates.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
And while paleoclimatology is interesting as an idea, for someone who believes in the Bible, it is not too useful.

Perhaps if that someone is you.

I believe in the bible -- or more accurately, the Torah -- as the Word of God. I also have no problem with paleoclimatology, which I think tells us a lot about our planet's history.

Not every believer believes exactly what you do.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
rivka - sorry if you thought I was speaking for you or anyone else. It should go without saying that my posts are representative of my own beliefs. But now it has been said. :-)

Squicky - I've heard of paleoclimatology before. And although it sounds snarky to say it this way, you might be surprised to find that some religious people are actually quite intelligent and have even been to college! In fact, I didn't have to take any science courses in college because I was able to CLEP out of them.

Having said that, I have major problems with the way science is presented these days. I believe that too many hypotheses are treated as facts. And with the group think that is evident in academics, I don't think the peer review process really works as it should.

As another example, there is a common theory that sediments form in distinct layers and that by examining what is underneath a known layer, you can see what happened in the past.

That makes sense, logically. If we find the remains of a Phineus Fern (a plant name I made up for fun) in a lower level, and some fossilized bugs below that, we should be able to guess that the fern was alive after the bugs.

My problem is this: if the world was flooded, all of that water - I don't even know how to quantify it, so I'll just say a gazillion gallons - churned things up. The Bible says the water came from a layer in the sky, as well as from the deeps; if water was truly falling down from the 'heavens' and bursting up from the ground at the same time, it would pretty quickly ruin any layers of sediment and rock that existed.

And if there was a layer of water in the upper atmosphere that came down during the flood, then the radiation levels, atmospheric pressure, available light, etc. all changed, which could also distort the evidence.

I guess to sum up (tl;dr): a world-wide flood would literally be a catastrophic event. It would churn, distort, and bury evidence in new ways, making it incredibly hard to reliably figure out in our day and time.

I realize that my whole viewpoint is based on my faith. I accept that as the starting premise. I can also see why someone with different beliefs would think I'm an idiot. :-)

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
a world-wide flood would literally be a catastrophic event. It would churn, distort, and bury evidence in new ways, making it incredibly hard to reliably figure out in our day and time.

Only that which happened before; not that which happened afterward.

Still leaves several thousand years' worth of evidence. All of which is relevant to the discussion of climate change, and which you seem to be dismissing wholesale.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right, rivka. I *am* dismissing it wholesale. If you begin from a flawed foundation - the idea that things have always been the way they are now - then the whole house of cards falls.

Yet another example - carbon dating. A scientist today might say "Fossil X is roughly 6,000 years old. We know this from carbon dating." And yet carbon dating is based on the idea that the half-life of a carbon-14 atom is around 5,700 years. That's the starting point for measuring how much of the atom is left, which tells us how long it has been decaying (or how long the life form has been dead).

The problem: we haven't been observing carbon-14 for 5,700 years. How can we possibly assume that this is the correct half-life? We are basing our assumption - our science - our FACTS - on something that we have not observed. It's ludicrous. It's a good guess and certainly possible, but to call the results "true" is very misleading.

It is entirely possible that the changes after the flood (the extra radiation and pressure changes) have caused a change in the rate of decay. Maybe right now, at this point in time, the decay seems to occur at a set rate, but maybe in the not-so-distant past, the rate was different.

Flawed foundations lead to unreliable science. Or to put it another way, "they became wise in their own eyes," meaning we as humans are a bit arrogant when we think we've figured something out.

So yes, I do throw out much of the climate change "science" because it is all based on assumptions that have been fed to us as facts. A fact has to be 1) observable and 2) repeatable. Most climate "facts" are based on ideas that aren't full observed and can't be repeated.

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you begin from a flawed foundation - the idea that things have always been the way they are now - then the whole house of cards falls.
As opposed to the flawed idea that, say, the Bible is a scientifically accurate historical document? [Wink]

quote:
In fact, I didn't have to take any science courses in college...
For what it's worth, Dustin, it shows. Seriously, for example, it is not true that all scientific analysis of past events relies on the presumption that observable mechanisms work exactly the same way today that they did then. Rather, the presumption is that observable mechanisms work the same way today that they did in the past, unless there is some good reason to believe otherwise. When there is good reason to believe otherwise, it is assumed that something has caused those mechanisms to behave differently.

Where this differs from creation "science" is the order of operations. Creationists declare "A Flood happened. We know this because the Bible says so. So any evidence which would seem to contradict the Bible's account is evidence that is misunderstood or is being improperly interpreted." And then they bend over backwards trying to come up with explanations for why observable mechanisms must have changed in order to justify the scientific claims of the Bible.

I'll go into more detail, but first I want to know whether you understand why this is a fundamentally unsound approach to science.

Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I realize that my whole viewpoint is based on my faith. I accept that as the starting premise.
Back when religious people *actually* believed in the global flood (not just believed they believed) they launched archaeological expeditions to discover Noah's ark, fully expecting they'd be vindicated in atleast as big a way as Schliemann who discovered Knossos and Mycenae and Troy by being guided by the Greek myths.

Now they're no longer seeking the Ark or other evidence, they're just seeking excuses about how they won't ever find such; and about how all the evidence to the contrary don't mean anything.

It's the difference between actually possessing belief, and merely professing belief.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For what it's worth, Dustin, it shows.
Wow, Tom. Arrogant much? Please point out what I said that was scientifically inaccurate.

It's easy to *think* that you're superior to other people. It's a bit harder to prove it.

quote:
...the presumption is that observable mechanisms work the same way today that they did in the past, unless there is some good reason to believe otherwise. When there is good reason to believe otherwise, it is assumed that something has caused those mechanisms to behave differently.
I agree that this is the mantra of modern science. But science has never and will never be able to account for the supernatural.

And even taking God out of the equation, that's a human-centric view of how the world works. If you truly believe that the earth is 4 billion years old, we've only been around for less than 2/10 of a percent of this planet's history. Yet from that tiny speck of knowledge, you think it is logical to say "things have always been the same unless you can prove otherwise..."

Change is the only true constant (a single butterfly, flapping its wings and all of that...) I'd say it is irresponsible to assume that our limited view of history is representative of hard truth when it comes to nature or the earth in general.

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris - I had no idea my faith was invalid unless I traveled to Ararat to look for the Ark. Enlightening!

In related news, you don't truly believe that a cell phone works unless you can explain to me how it works (in detail, of course) and show me the original patents for the first cell phone. I look forward to hearing from you.

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Please point out what I said that was scientifically inaccurate.
You just did it again, when you quoted me. *grin* You lack a basic familiarity with the philosophical underpinnings of scientific thought, Dustin. This is to be expected, since you've studied Christian apology more than you've studied science -- but, like I said, it shows.

quote:
But science has never and will never be able to account for the supernatural.
Well, duh. That's because the supernatural doesn't exist. If you disagree, please prove to me that it does before continuing. [Smile]

quote:
Yet from that tiny speck of knowledge, you think it is logical to say "things have always been the same unless you can prove otherwise..."
I think it's absolutely logical. Note that I'm not saying "unless you can prove otherwise," either. I'm saying it's "unless you have some reason to believe otherwise." There is no rational reason to believe, for example, that physical laws were somehow different prior to an enormous flood, or observed reality must be called into question because a flood could have messed it up beyond what we would expect; only if you start from the assumption that there was a flood as described in the Bible, and proceed with the observation that a flood would violate the observable natural laws of the universe, must you then look for possible ways that a worldwide flood could have changed the laws of the universe so that, prior to the flood, it could have been possible.

But that's a fundamentally unscientific approach. It's ludicrous. If you're doing to do it, don't bother pretending to any kind of science; just shrug and say "God did it," then wander off.

Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I had no idea my faith was invalid unless I traveled to Ararat to look for the Ark. "
The point isn't that you in particular aren't searching for the Ark (you aren't an archaeologist after all), the point is that religious people in general aren't searching for the Ark anymore.

Truly-believing Mormon archaelogists tried to search for the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and once upon a time that's what truly-believing Christian archaelogists tried to do in regards to the Ark.

quote:
In related news, you don't truly believe that a cell phone works unless you can explain to me how it works (in detail, of course) and show me the original patents for the first cell phone.
I know that a cell-phone works, because I can predictably use a cell-phone. Lack of precise knowledge about *how* it works doesn't matter to the fact of this reliable prediction.

But how does the world without God differ from the world with your God?
- both with and without divine inspiration, some individuals declare themselves prophets and gets others to believe in them in their millions.
- both with and without your God, there are natural catastrophes that kill thousands or even millions of people.

I know how a world without working cellphones would differ from a world with cellphones.

Tell me how a world without God differs from a world with it.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath   Email Dogbreath         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
In related news, you don't truly believe that a cell phone works unless you can explain to me how it works (in detail, of course) and show me the original patents for the first cell phone. I look forward to hearing from you.

Heck, today's your lucky day, because I actually do know how a cellphone works, and can describe every aspect of it from the components, RF theory, signal path, electronics, and economics involved in detail. Actually, one of the algorithms that govern TDMA and time slots in general and allow modern cellphones to work depends on a physical constant that negates the possibility of Young Earth Creationism. [Smile] (Unless, of course, there are actually angels carrying the messages back and forth between the RTs in the phone and the base station...)

There's nothing irreducibly complex about cellphones. They're actually a good deal more complex than most people think, but thanks to the internet, anyone who really wants to know how they work can figure it out. (Though it may take some people years to do so)

Posts: 1116 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:


But science has never and will never be able to account for the supernatural.


Oh, honey. Of course it has. It is just that once science explains it, we no longer think of it as "supernatural".

Look, I am on your side. I don't think that science is the only or even always the best way to relate to the world. But you are just talking nonsense here.

[ March 07, 2012, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 10608 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dustin,
quote:
My problem is this: if the world was flooded, all of that water - I don't even know how to quantify it, so I'll just say a gazillion gallons - churned things up. The Bible says the water came from a layer in the sky, as well as from the deeps; if water was truly falling down from the 'heavens' and bursting up from the ground at the same time, it would pretty quickly ruin any layers of sediment and rock that existed.
If I'm reading this right, you believe that the flood operated in a natural manner and would have left observable evidence of itself.

It seems like what you are describing would be extremely conspicuous. If what you are saying is true, then I would expect it to be pretty obvious to the people who study sedimentary layers or honestly, anyone who could look at the layers.

Also, I would expect the measurements that they take from this source to be inconsistent from place to place and to differ significantly and unpredictably from other measurements of the same thing.

Do you agree that those predictions follow from what you've postulated?

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanon1331
Member
Member # 12786

 - posted      Profile for Shanon1331   Email Shanon1331         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dustin Dopps- Thanks for the compliment, and I mean that. I dont think Im all that amazingly informed. Reading all of the posts on this page, obviously OSC readers are a group of intelligent people.
Lol, I only know what paleoclimatology is because I can figure the word out by reading it.

I'm not trying to piss anybody off here. Seems like the madder people get the less and less useful the conversation becomes on towards anything but seeing who can out do the other on wit.

You say you believe in the bible, right?

First off, when you say that and then use that as a justification for ignoring other peoples beliefs, such as science, and put it in a way that makes it sound as other people are wrong for believing as they do, you are kind of throwing the first punch. And people tend to react in kind.

The thing is, I believe in God, but I also know the history of the bible. Now, you are welcome to believe whatever you want about the bible, but I am just curious as to why you believe that it can be interpreted to deny the reality of science. I dont mean, what gives you the right. Obviously the fact that you can is the right you have, but if science is good enough to give you a cell phone, a car to drive, a computer to relay your ideas on, what is it that would lead you to the the conclusion that it is somehow suddenly false when it is in disagreement with your interpretation of the bible?

Im not trying to correct you. I've been arguing for so many years with people who are dead set on what they believe and refuse to consider questioning it, and I know its futile. There are people on both sides of the aisle who are like that, and damn if it isn't tearing this country apart.

No, I'm honestly just curious. You used the thermometer example as proof its impossible to go back more than the life of thermometer technology. You seem intelligent enough to know there is more than thermometer technology as a gauge and that all these world class scientists might have known that we would catch them right in their tricks if they were only using thermometers.
And I've wondered the same about carbon dating. How can we check it if we dont know anyone who was alive back then to confirm we were right? Thing is, we're both intelligent enough to know there must be more to it than that, or again, those tricky science guys couldn't have pulled off such a scam. They have to be able to convince some pretty smart people there is credible truth to their tests before it gets used. That means our question was asked and there was enough answer that its considered a credible science by people alot smarter than you or I.
I'm just wondering, why aren't you willing to consider these things that your clearly intelligent reasoning mind would guide you look at?

I think your answer is your faith in the bible tells you they cant be true. So my very sincere question to you, as an intelligent human being, is this. Why do you believe the bible is absolute above science and reason? Someone must have told you this, but why did you believe them?

God gave you the reason and intelligence to question and test each idea that comes before you, and man gave you your faith in a book written by men claiming it to be perfect and infallible, and you choose what men tell you over what your reason and intellect tell you. I am hoping you can be humble enough to honestly answer that question. Because to me and to many others, it is looking like we are going to have to lose this world because of such behavior. And I know I cannot change your mind and that God, using the natural laws He created, is the only one who can. But I would at least like to know that you actually have a sound reason for believing as you do.

For the record, I believe in the supernatural. I do believe every bit of it can be explained by science over time, but science needs to grow and has since its inception.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And no, I'm not trying to push buttons - I really do believe in the great flood and the Bible.
I'm just sure next time you get sick, you'll pray for health instead of going to, y'know, a doctor. None of whose treatments will have been arrived at through faith, and nearly all of which will provably make you better.

I mean, there are quite a few people here who could give dozens of examples of things that-once upon a time, sometimes quite recently-were the realm of faith...right up until (strangely enough) us humans discovered better ways of handling problems. Then, gradually, the area that was superseded will become no longer the property of faith but instead something through which, thanks to God's grace, we are gifted with the ingenuity to solve on our own.

Then the same sorts of people who say, "It's not true because I know the Flood happened," rather than examining whether or not it's true on its own, absent other considerations, they'll say that faith now has rights over all the other things that haven't been disproven yet, without any loss of credibility.

I mean, hell, you freely admit (in fact you seemed to be kind of gloating about it, how smart you are and knowledgeable) that you haven't made a disciplined study of any scientific field. Not one, much less one relevant to dating techniques and climatology. But yet in spite of this admitted huge ignorance, you go on to say, "Man, we're just being fed so much bunk. That's not real science. Science is this," and then go on to explain all the flaws in a system which you haven't studied.

Somehow this series of contradictory claims and admissions manages to go from your brain to your mouth without triggering a, "Wait a second..." moment. Why is that? Well, I can't say for sure, but it might have something to do with the fact that your thinking on these topics appears to follow reasoning like this: "I know the Flood happened; examine phenomenon and objects in the world; do science and reach conclusions."

Were you really in a position to tell anyone what the problem with science as it is portrayed in the modern world really is, you might be able to spot which of those steps is...flawed.

You can be a proponent of the Biblical Flood (as it's called, though of course Jews had the idea first, but strangely it's the 'Biblical' Flood) or you can tell us what science teaches us about the natural world. You really can't do both credibly. You can admit you haven't made a study of science or you can tell us what's wrong with science today-you really can't do both. Well, not and pass a laugh test, anyway.

(Hey, case in point: early on you made a claim about how long we've been making observations. This was put down promptly-but suddenly, you didn't mean that, you meant something else, by 'observations' the only valid observations are of course people looking at a thermometer and then writing the numbers down. Those are observations. But somehow you're supposed to be just as credible after you made the ignorant claim as you were before. The goalposts moved. Once again, there wasn't anything that would disprove your idea.)

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that there probably was a flood. Probably whole bunches of regional floods that made it into myth. Noah, the Deluge of Manu, Utnapishtim, Deucalion all have similar themes. I think it quite probably that there was some geological or meteorological event or combination of events that was the seed of those legends.
Posts: 10608 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, sure, maybe. Once we broaden the meaning of 'seed' in this context, there very well might be. Many cultures have legends about, say, enormous fire breathing dragons or demons or angels or ghosts or alchemy or or or. If you squint and turn aside a bit, then you can say, "Well, these Bronze or Iron Age humans discovered some huge fossils and that became the seed of dragons," or, "Once an aristocratic family back in prehistory was what we know now probably schizophrenic but also able to sustain their power, and this became one of the seeds for regional legends of demons."

But Dustin is welcome, at his leisure, to name one scientist from any of the many relevant fields he admits to not having studies, who can both point to evidence of the Biblical Flood and whose credentials don't include a university with 'Jesus' somewhere in the charter or somesuch.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And Dustin, confronted with the overwhelming weight of his own ignorance, ran away, never to return. I, for one, lament his departure, for it deprives me of potentially hundreds of hours of unintentional comedy.
Posts: 5454 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, El JT de Spang (if that is even your *real* name!), I got sick for several days, then decided to wait and read other peoples' opinions to see if there was anything valuable. Responding to each and every person is futile, and I wanted to see what other ideas were out there.

Unfortunately, other than the initial poster Shanon, nobody else here is capable of honest discussion. Your post is further proof of that. You're all really good at attacking and taking things out of context, but that's about it. For example, when I say "I didn't have to take college science courses because I already knew enough to CLEP out of them," I get attacked for having no knowledge of science and for not understanding basic scientific concepts. The fact of the matter is this: I have studied science on a continual basis. I could CLEP out of university-level science courses *because* of my knowledge, not because of ignorance. And when I asked for proof that I had said something scientifically inaccurate, none appeared. Magic!

Apparently the consensus here is that my belief in God makes me an idiot. It has been implied that anyone with religious beliefs or anyone who studied at a religious institution is somehow intellectually inferior and unable to read about, understand, or discuss science.

It's a form of hubris that the Left is known for, although you wouldn't admit that yourself. You would say that your opinions are based on facts and logic and *couldn't* be colored by arrogance. But you're wrong.

I am going to keep from responding again, but not due to the "overwhelming weight of my own ignorance." Instead, I'm going to stop responding because there's no way to have a discussion with such a close-minded group of people.

You can have fun sitting behind your computer feeling smart, like a winner. But one day in the future when the weight of your arrogance leaves you with an empty life, with nothing but your misguided logic to comfort you, I sincerely hope you give God a try.

Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DustinDopps (is that really your *real* name?),

At least two of the people who responded to you also believe in God. One of them even said so explicitly. You must admit, that does not lend credibility to your inclination to look at evidence.

Posts: 10608 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It has been implied that anyone with religious beliefs or anyone who studied at a religious institution is somehow intellectually inferior and unable to read about, understand, or discuss science.
Where?
I ask because I'm quite good at reading comprehension -- I got to test out of those courses in college, even -- and yet I don't see where this has happened.

Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As someone who evaluates CLEP results as part of my job, I have to be amused at someone thinking being able to pass a CLEP is proof of serious scientific knowledge. CLEPs are designed to test absolute minimum standards. In general, passing one means knowledge at roughly the equivalent of a C- student. And in a basic, intro-level course, not the type of serious courses a science major would take, for example.

More and more universities are refusing to accept them in lieu of coursework, especially for any course that is a prerequisite for later work, where lack of grounding in the subject will be a problem.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yay! Dustin is back! Entertainment continues!

ps -- it's not your faith that makes you stupid. It's that you're stupid. There are many smart believers on this board, and they've had no better luck so far showing you why your grasp of the scientific method is hilariously lacking than the non-believers have. You are equal opportunity in that, at least.

Posts: 5454 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JT's response was pretty ridiculous, especially considering the amount of time some of us have to wait for him to rrespond to...things. Mote, beam, eyes, etc. :-)
Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...then again, Dustin lights into the convo with bits of this:

quote:
But one day in the future when the weight of your arrogance leaves you with an empty life, with nothing but your misguided logic to comfort you, I sincerely hope you give God a try.
Eh. I think people can be happy (in this life) without God.

But then I'm not sure that happiness is exactly what this life is about, from a religious perspective.

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
JT's response was pretty ridiculous, especially considering the amount of time some of us have to wait for him to rrespond to...things. Mote, beam, eyes, etc. :-)

I thrive on ridiculousity! Can you believe FF tries to tell me there's no such word? Poppycock, says I!
Posts: 5454 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dustin,

quote:
Unfortunately, other than the initial poster Shanon, nobody else here is capable of honest discussion. Your post is further proof of that. You're all really good at attacking and taking things out of context, but that's about it. For example, when I say "I didn't have to take college science courses because I already knew enough to CLEP out of them," I get attacked for having no knowledge of science and for not understanding basic scientific concepts. The fact of the matter is this: I have studied science on a continual basis. I could CLEP out of university-level science courses *because* of my knowledge, not because of ignorance. And when I asked for proof that I had said something scientifically inaccurate, none appeared. Magic!

No, that's not why you were attacked. You were attacked for the claim you made because of the training you described on your own. You claimed to have an understanding of science-science in general, no less!-so meaningful and penetrating that you could rule it, what was it you said?

quote:
Having said that, I have major problems with the way science is presented these days. I believe that too many hypotheses are treated as facts. And with the group think that is evident in academics, I don't think the peer review process really works as it should.

And what do you base this on? This skepticism about the way science is 'presented these days'? Knowledge that the events in the Bible are true. I mean, geeze. You start with an article of faith, insist it happened, and then using that article of faith you criticize what people using science have learned about our world.

And then get all snippy and hurt about being criticized roundly for doing so. As for proof of what you said being scientifically inaccurate...c'mon. I no longer believe you've made a serious study of any science, much less 'Science' in general, if you insist on that. You're asking people to look at an event portrayed in the Bible, and prove that it didn't happen, and then insisting they don't understand science.

That's not how it works.

quote:
Apparently the consensus here is that my belief in God makes me an idiot. It has been implied that anyone with religious beliefs or anyone who studied at a religious institution is somehow intellectually inferior and unable to read about, understand, or discuss science.

Nope. This is a lie. You may read into things what you like, but your reasoning has been attacked very specifically, and no one has said anything that even implies that because you believe in God, you cannot possibly be right or intelligent. You're welcome to believe that's what's happened, though. I'm sure it's more flattering to your vanity. People are criticizing your ability to understand and discuss science because of the way you've explained your understanding of science, and they've explained why.

Unless you're referring to my remarks, where I say you're welcome to refer to scientists who don't have a pre-existing belief in God to color their objectivity. That doesn't count if you read what was written.

quote:
You can have fun sitting behind your computer feeling smart, like a winner. But one day in the future when the weight of your arrogance leaves you with an empty life, with nothing but your misguided logic to comfort you, I sincerely hope you give God a try.
Did you nail yourself up on that cross alone? With robots or other martyrs, or what?
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2