The tip of the ice berg

[Bungle_Bear]

Can a person say MUSIC CAN TAKE A HIKE without knowing the difference between classical music and one-hit wonders?

You mean like this?

 

[ottawak]

Immigrants? Wanting a secure border makes you a YEC fanatic? It sounds like you are lumping all the issues you disagree with into one category

How do you know I disagree? I just listed all of the other issues that are of significant importance to the Christian Right these days. The Christian Right are substantially all biblical Evangelicals who want more influence on public policy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.
That person would ban all music; without any distinction.
Just like you guys end up threatening all sciences without distinction.
For years your tag line was 'Science can take a hike"?

Threatens all sciences without distinction?

What's this then?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Notice I highlighted the distinction that renders your point moot?

 

[Astrid]

Of course not.
If someone can show a deep knowledge of the subject and reliable data that can refute it, then he or she will be worth to listen to. But just saying "I don't believe it" wont impress anyone. Come with data, hardcore data, and we can talk. But too few creationists say "I don't know much about it but it's wrong". Well, these are the honest ones, those that admit they don't know what they are talking about. And they are too few.
The vast majority hasn't even the humility to admit they don't know much about it.
But the theme of this thread is that, to maintain the YEC stupidity, all sciences are under attack. Because all sciences somewhere either give the ToE some credibility or contradict the narrow minded reading of the bible that the YEC's embrace.
What is under attack is the notion of empirical science. YEC's want to replace by just a choice "I don't believe it", or by arguments of authority "God's infallible word against that of fallible men".
In the mean time, museum staff is harassed or museum visits are disturbed:
The New Pulpit: Museums, Authority, and the Cultural Reproduction of Young-Earth Creationism
Teachers need to walk on eggs for not disturb their students' feelings:
Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales

As said earlier, i want good, solid, robust STEM education - wide spread, because you end up with a scientificcally illiterate population, in all the sciences.
https://www.hoover.org/research/scientifically-illiterate-america

Theres few will admit to not knowing much, true;
and its a tinge of honesty to say so.

The post to which you replied, though, was not about that,
the substance of it being his contention that I am without
personal or intellectual integrity, and am unaware of said deficit.

It would have been honest -tho even more ungentlemanly-
to have said it straight out rather than slyly maneuvering
within the rules.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Threatens all sciences without distinction?

What's this then?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Notice I highlighted the distinction that renders your point moot?

If you were truly honest, you'd combine 4&5 into just 5. But you like to pretend.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you were truly honest, you'd combine 4&5 into just 5. But you like to pretend.

You don't like me saying: GO WITH SCIENCE?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can a person say MUSIC CAN TAKE A HIKE without knowing the difference between classical music and one-hit wonders?

They certainly can say it.

And they will be dismissed as ignorant crackpots and laughed at loudly and often.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, nobody.

I just pulled that out of my hat.

You have a very high opinion of your opinions, I see.

 

[AV1611VET]

And they will be dismissed as ignorant crackpots and laughed at loudly and often.

By adults?

And we wonder why our kids turn out the way they do?

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a very high opinion of your opinions, I see.

It's a top hat.

 

[TLK Valentine]

By adults?

And we wonder why our kids turn out the way they do?

You might -- but then again, you're the one who recruits kids to do your work for you...

"Any child from our Sunday school classes can..." give the answers you're afraid to give in public.

 

[BPPLEE]

Theres few will admit to not knowing much, true;
and its a tinge of honesty to say so.

The post to which you replied, though, was not about that,
the substance of it being his contention that I am without
personal or intellectual integrity, and am unaware of said deficit.

It would have been honest -tho even more ungentlemanly-
to have said it straight out rather than slyly maneuvering
within the rules.

Now you're trying to read my mind. I didn't mean to imply anything about your integrity I implied that you are intolerant of people who are skeptical about evolution and I think you are fully aware of it. You are certainly not the only one.

 

[BPPLEE]

How do you know I disagree? I just listed all of the other issues that are of significant importance to the Christian Right these days. The Christian Right are substantially all biblical Evangelicals who want more influence on public policy.

I think you are equating "the Christian right" with the MAGA movement. There may be some truth in what you are asserting but they are two different things.

 

[ottawak]

I think you are equating "the Christian right" with the MAGA movement. There may be some truth in what you are asserting but they are two different things.

No, I know the difference.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You don't like me saying: GO WITH SCIENCE?

I'd rather you were honest. Bible says nothing, science says Pluto =/= planet, what say you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd rather you were honest.

Would you know it if I was.

Bible says nothing, science says Pluto =/= planet, what say you?

I say Pluto is a planet, because I believe it was demoted by way of a rigged vote.

If I agree that it is no longer a planet, then I'm just as guilty as the IAU for their deceptive practices.

If tomorrow the IAU holds an honest vote on Pluto, and Pluto gets demoted, then I'll change my stance -- (maybe).

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think you are equating "the Christian right" with the MAGA movement. There may be some truth in what you are asserting but they are two different things.

Different but joined at the hip. They are allied by a common goal... and it's going to be equal parts funny and tragic when one group inevitably stabs the other in the back.

 

[Astrid]

Now you're trying to read my mind. I didn't mean to imply anything about your integrity I implied that you are intolerant of people who are skeptical about evolution and I think you are fully aware of it. You are certainly not the only one.

Good to hear nothing about my integrity was intended.

I would,though, have to be a mind reader to
know that "to you someone must accept the ToE or they are
wrong" actually means I am intolerant of
people who are skeptical about evolution, or, ftm,
that "to you there is no room to be skeptical or
reject it" also means the same thing. Coz they really dont

" you have more faith than you give yourself credit for"
also does read at all like your bowdlerized rendition.
"Fully aware of it" is the opposite.

I only have to be ordinary reader of
honoutable English dictionary to know INTEGRITY
refers to a persons ability to follow the
principles and values they stand for.

Now, I am no scientist. My study / resarch ended
one year into my Masters.
I did however absorb the core values
and principles of the scientific
method.

And, looking at just one of those, we find
skepticism.
Don't just assume, dont just trust "experts",
question everything.

So, see, for you to say i will not tolerate skepticism
is in fact to say that I am withoit integrity in this regard.

I will take your word that you did
not intend it as being aboit integrity, but it
very exactly is.

In truth, I or anyone with a real interest in
the subject would welcome new ideas
and are more than ready to join
with someone in entertainjng doubts-
if they make sense.

Data, logic. That stuff. Or sometimes some
pretty off the wall stuff, if it shows some intelligence.


Ive never seen any such from creationists,
though I'd surely welcome it.
if it ever came along. But I just hear the
same tired moldy pratts.

It is true I've little patuence for the likes
of " how come theres still monkeys" presented
as a killer gotcha.

Do you understand what I am saying?
"Must accept ToE or they are wrong" just is not
remotely correct, and if it were it would mean I have
abandoned any intellectual integrity I ever had.

 

[BPPLEE]

Good to hear nothing about my integrity was intended.
I would though have to be a mind reader to know that
" to you someone must accept the ToE or they are
wrong" actually means I am intolerant of people who
are skeptical about evolution, or, ftm, that "to you there is no room
to be skeptical or reject it" also means the same thing.

" you have more faith than you give yourself credit for"
also does read at all like your bowdlerized rendition.

I onluy have to be ordinary resder of honoutable English
dictionary to know INTEGRITY refers to a persons ability
to follow the principles and values they stand for.

Now, I am no scientist. My study / rsearch ended one year
intocmt Masters.
I did however absorb the core values and principles of the scientific
method.

And, looking at just one of those, its is skepticism. Do t just assume, dont
just trust " experts", question everything.

So, see, for you to say i will not tolerate skepticism
is in fact to say that I am withoit integrity in this regard.

I will take your word that you did not intend it t
as being aboit integrity, but it very exactly is.

In truth, I or anyone with a real interest innthe subject
welcome new ideas, and arevmore than ready to join
with someone in entertainjng doubts- if they make sense.

Data, logic. That stuff. Or sometimes some pretty off the wall
speculation.

Ive never seen any such from creationists, though id surely eelcomevit
if it ever came along. I just hear thevsame tired moldy prstts.

And sure, ive little patuence for the likes of " how come theres
still monkeys".

Do you understand what I am saying?
"Must accept ToE or they are wrong" just is not
remotely correct, and if it were it would mean I have
abandoned any intellectual integrity I ever had.

Then I apologize for mischaracterizing you I meant nothing about your integrity only your position . Never post when frustrated

 

[ruthiesea]

If it's that simple then who doesn't believe it? I don't believe it happened on its own accord. Apparently that means I'm ignorant dangerous and reject all science

According to whom?