Heartland

MrChris wrote:Anyone for a ticket to Syria?

i believe it will be the next one.

f**k.


Maybe when they hit people will realize how much they f**ked themselves over....

I can't believe this.

markfiend wrote:

boudicca's sig wrote:Those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for the sake of security deserve neither freedom nor security

...that is precisely what the idiots who voted Bush have done.

That's why I put it in.

Not actually sure if it was Abe or Benjamin Franklin who said it, but let's face it, hard facts don't count for much these days. You get the point - I can't think of another country which has strayed so far from its supposed ideals.

I'm pretty shocked at how much of the vote was apparently influenced by the "moral issues". Even though I tend to stray from my normal liberal tendencies when it comes to issues like abortion and homosexuality, I can't believe that these things have influenced the most important US election of my lifetime. Then again, I'm not a fundamentalist evangelical Christian...
Which reminds me, heard on the news today that something like one-half of Americans subscribe to Creationist theory . 2000 years ago, fair enough, but these days there is just no f**king excuse for it, in a developed, supposedly civilised country.
Mind you, the success of Mr. Bush does damage Darwin's theory somewhat. Survival of the dimmest?

dark wrote: ..And the idiot weilds the power.

That's what I think of whenever I hear that lyric as well...[/quote]

it was franklin...

A day of mourning.

And I want an European Army. Hope we're already doing it in secret if we are smart (and we remember the lessons of History). Don't forget we're dealing with bullies. Common ground and negociations don't work with bullies. It has been tried with Hitler. Look where it led us. But even a very stupid bully will think twice if there's a stick on someone else's hand.
No more miss nice girl.
Back to cold war? No sweat. *pun intended*

boudicca wrote:Which reminds me, heard on the news today that something like one-half of Americans subscribe to Creationist theory . 2000 years ago, fair enough, but these days there is just no **** excuse for it, in a developed, supposedly civilised country.

Ahem

By the way, using "theory" to describe creationism is a misuse of the word theory

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Creationism has no explanatory or predictive power other than to say "It was a miracle! God did it!" Which doesn't advance human understanding a whole lot does it?

Sorry, the creation / evolution debate is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine. Don't get me started or I'll be here all week talking about allele shifts in populations, the difference between sympatric and allopatric speciation, ring species, possible mechanisms for abiogenesis...

I'm pretty shocked at how much of the vote was apparently influenced by the "moral issues". Even though I tend to stray from my normal liberal tendencies when it comes to issues like abortion and homosexuality, I can't believe that these things have influenced the most important US election of my lifetime. Then again, I'm not a fundamentalist evangelical Christian...

did you see his dad is busy suing the porn industry. don't understand quite how he decided we needed to be protected from it, but hey...

boudicca wrote:Which reminds me, heard on the news today that something like one-half of Americans subscribe to Creationist theory . 2000 years ago, fair enough, but these days there is just no **** excuse for it, in a developed, supposedly civilised country.

Although in a supposedly civilised country people should surely be free to believe what they wish ....?

markfiend wrote:Sorry, the creation / evolution debate is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine. Don't get me started or I'll be here all week talking about allele shifts in populations, the difference between sympatric and allopatric speciation, ring species, possible mechanisms for abiogenesis...

The problem with the whole creation / evolution argument is that ultimately both are built on faith. Either you choose to believe the Biblical line or the scientific one. And whatever the scientific evidence, if you believe in an infallible supreme being you have to accept that what man has discovered has the potential to be flawed.

For example, carbon dating and the like may effectively confirm to the scientific community that the world pre-dates October 23 4004 BC. But, carbon-dating is a man-made process and is potentially inaccurate. God doesn't make mistakes so you can dismiss it.

Not saying this is an intelligent point of view, but it is at least consistent. And impossible to effectively contradict given that we are dealing with competing hypotheses.

All too depressing but at least they seem to have had a choice, although who knows what Kerry would have been like; part of his appeal was lack of (bad) track record. There was some hope at least.

In dear old blighty if we get rid of Blair we get...Howard! One of Thatcher's worst. Thanks a bunch.

As an American I must asy...ANYONE OVER SEAS NEED A ROOMMATE?!?!?!?!?......
I need out of here, Bush, The redneck bible humping pigf*cking idiot he is some how got in again, my faith in this country seems to be getting worse and worse. It is enough to make me convert to being Muslim and joining in with Bin Laden

andymackem wrote:Although in a supposedly civilised country people should surely be free to believe what they wish ....?

Well, yes. But when these people try to force their fairy story into a science classroom, I'm going to get angry. Because it ain't science.

andymackem wrote:The problem with the whole creation / evolution argument is that ultimately both are built on faith.

Bovine faeces of the purest variety I'm afraid. The scientific model is built on several hundred thousand man-years of research, along different lines of enquiry, all leading to the same conclusion. That evolution happens is a fact. The best explanation currently available for that fact is Darwinian "survival of the fittest" (with some modification, plus the knowledge of molecular genetics that was simply unavailable to Darwin). The creationists deny the very fact of evolutionary change that has been observed to happen over and over again.

andymackem wrote: Either you choose to believe the Biblical line or the scientific one. And whatever the scientific evidence, if you believe in an infallible supreme being you have to accept that what man has discovered has the potential to be flawed.

For example, carbon dating and the like may effectively confirm to the scientific community that the world pre-dates October 23 4004 BC. But, carbon-dating is a man-made process and is potentially inaccurate. God doesn't make mistakes so you can dismiss it.

But if you go down this line you're effectively forced into believing that God is a deceiver. By all scientific research so far done, by multiple independent lines of research that all confirm each other the universe looks to be about 12 to 15 billion years old; this planet is about 4 and a half billion years old, and life has been here for at least 3 billion years. If one were to say that God made a young earth but left it looking much older... one may as well say that the world was created last Tuesday with all our memories of previous existence created with it. Sure, you can believe it if you want, but it doesn't really help with our understanding of the universe we find ourselves in, which is the point of science.

andymackem wrote:Not saying this is an intelligent point of view, but it is at least consistent.

Well, I think I've pointed out how this "consistency" vanishes under even cursory examination.

andymackem wrote: And impossible to effectively contradict given that we are dealing with competing hypotheses.

However, the impossibility of contradicting creationism is, unfortunately, the case. If someone is more interested in preserving their faith than in learning some facts, it is very hard to make them listen.

markfiend wrote:Don't get me started or I'll be here all week

Now look what you've gone and made me do!

There are some branches of the church that believe that God planted evidence of evolution to test faith. Once you get into that kind of loop there's no argument any more.

If he existed I'd like to think he would have better things to do.

straylight wrote:There are some branches of the church that believe that God planted evidence of evolution to test faith. Once you get into that kind of loop there's no argument any more.

If he existed I'd like to think he would have better things to do.

actually, i quite like the idea that he hasn't got anything better to do than f*ck with our minds...

[quote="Quiff Boy
actually, i quite like the idea that he hasn't got anything better to do than f*ck with our minds... [/quote]

Hmm, what to do today...save loads of innocent lives? Nah. I've got a great idea for a fossil....

I think I just got religion!

try reading terry pratchet(discworld).puts everything into perspective

markfiend wrote: one may as well say that the world was created last Tuesday with all our memories of previous existence created with it.

I hereby declare myself the high priest of last-Tuesday-ism! The church accepts donations by paypal

markfiend wrote:

boudicca wrote:Which reminds me, heard on the news today that something like one-half of Americans subscribe to Creationist theory . 2000 years ago, fair enough, but these days there is just no **** excuse for it, in a developed, supposedly civilised country.

Ahem

Ummmm

aaron quinton wrote: it was franklin...

Danke! Once again I make an arse of myself. See sig change...

andymackem wrote:Although in a supposedly civilised country people should surely be free to believe what they wish ....?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to, when I say there's no excuse for it. I believe in free speech, but by that principle, I am also free to say that a certain point of view is utterly ridiculous. As markfiend says, it's the attempt to impose a fairy story in the classroom, instead of encouraging children of that age to develop their critical faculties, that bugs me the most.

andymackem wrote:The problem with the whole creation / evolution argument is that ultimately both are built on faith.

I disagree. What evidence of any description has been provided for the theory of Creation? All belief in supernatural beings (I include a transcendent God in this) and their actions requires complete abandonment of our ability to reason and question - because by their very nature these beings are "beyond" the rational realm. How convenient.
We see evidence of evolution before our eyes on a day to day basis. Watch Trisha and you'll see what I mean. The only faith is the faith that some people have in science. And like all faith (at least in a philosophical context) it's always destructive. To have faith is to be closed to anything which may shake it. I don't hand all my critical faculties over to science, rationality and reason, believe it or not. I operate on the premise that these are the things to trust, but I also recognise I'm a puny human being with an even punier brain.

This was about Dubya at one point wasn't it?
[/quote]

We live in a political world,
Love don't have any place.
We're living in times where men commit crimes
And crime don't have a face

We live in a political world,
Icicles hanging down,
Wedding bells ring and angels sing,
clouds cover up the ground.

We live in a political world,
Wisdom is thrown into jail,
It rots in a cell, is misguided as hell
Leaving no one to pick up a trail.

We live in a political world
Where mercy walks the plank,
Life is in mirrors, death disappears
Up the steps into the nearest bank.

We live in a political world
Where courage is a thing of the past
Houses are haunted, children are unwanted
The next day could be your last.

We live in a political world.
The one we can see and can feel
But there's no one to check, it's all a stacked deck,
We all know for sure that it's real.

We live in a political world
In the cities of lonesome fear,
Little by little you turn in the middle
But you're never why you're here.

We live in a political world
Under the microscope,
You can travel anywhere and hang yourself there
You always got more than enough rope.

We live in a political world
Turning and a'thrashing about,
As soon as you're awake, you're trained to take
What looks like the easy way out.

We live in a political world
Where peace is not welcome at all,
It's turned away from the door to wander some more
Or put up against the wall.

We live in apolitical world
Everything is hers or his,
Climb into the frame and shout God's name
But you're never sure what it is.

@ MF. It's too late for a detailed reply, but while you think it's a fairy story, half of America thinks it's the literal truth. So of course they believe it should be taught, and if it's the literal truth why teach something different?

Define "fact" for the purposes of this debate. Well-researched and supported hypothesis I'll buy. Incontrovertable fact I won't accept because I have to make allowance for the simple fact they we cannot fully know what happened in the early ages of geological time (whether that's 1million BC or 4002 BC, frankly).

God is deceiver? No, mankind is fallible. I didn't say God artificially aged the Earth, I said that our estimates of the Earth's age were consistently exaggerated due to manmade flaws in processes such as carbon dating. You can't seriously believe that science is flawless, can you? That would smack of funda-mental-ism! (sorry, cheap shot!)

Consistency: but your "cursory examination" offers a discrepancy of up to the 3 billion years, or up to one quarter of the estimated history of the universe? Or indeed the entire estimated span of recognisable life? If I'm not inclined to believe you in the first place I can happily beat you round the head on this one forever, frankly.

I do agree that if someone is more interested in their opinion than taking on board other ideas it can make for an impossible dialogue - I think we're demonstrating that fairly neatly ourselves! And I have almost as much fun winding up creationists with a similar set of arguments from the other side.

@ Boudicca. You have the right to say their theories are rubbish. But if they total roughly half the population, and we are in a democracy, don't we have to accept a majority verdict (once we've removed the don't knows and don't cares)?.

The evidence for a transcendant god, if you choose to believe it, is also everywhere. I have friends who insist that God (the Christian one) has directly intervened in their lives and the lives of people around them. Personally I disagree with them, but they feel they have more direct, personal proof of their God than I can derive from any scientific treatise. And without having shared their experience, how can I be sure they are wrong?

Faith = always destructive. Listen to Bach. Think again. What I term "corporate religion" might be, but faith can inspire wonders as well as disasters. From the earliest ages of human history it has prompted the high watermarks of civilisations: think pyramids, Stonehenge, the great churches, temples, mosques, think the art of the Italian renaissance. To pick a few examples. And yes, on the debit side think Spanish inquisition, Crusades, beheaded hostages in Iraq and all the rest. It's a two-way street.

Dubya who?

I'm off to bed. Peace and love, all.

Erm, religion sucks, y'all.

Anyway to get this back on topic, here's something I knocked together yesterday.

markfiend wrote:[The creationists deny the very fact of evolutionary change that has been observed to happen over and over again.

Now, now MF. Take a deep breath. Deep in your heart you know they're right. Can you look at Bush and honestly tell me you believe in evolution?

straylight wrote:There are some branches of the church that believe that God planted evidence of evolution to test faith. Once you get into that kind of loop there's no argument any more.

If he existed I'd like to think he would have better things to do.

Well, you're half right. God may have better things to do, but Christians don't. Apparently.

straylight wrote:There are some branches of the church that believe that God planted evidence of evolution to test faith. .

By the way- are these the same people that wear tinfoil hats to stop the government from reading their minds?

andymackem wrote:@ MF. It's too late for a detailed reply, but while you think it's a fairy story, half of America thinks it's the literal truth. So of course they believe it should be taught, and if it's the literal truth why teach something different?

Fine. But not in science lessons, because it isn't science.

andymackem wrote:Define "fact" for the purposes of this debate. Well-researched and supported hypothesis I'll buy. Incontrovertable fact I won't accept because I have to make allowance for the simple fact they we cannot fully know what happened in the early ages of geological time (whether that's 1million BC or 4002 BC, frankly).

Weeeellll, you're getting right down to the roots of methodological naturalism here OK nothing in science can be 100% fact because there's always the possibility that we're living in The Matrix or something. But this way lies solipsism; if I decide that I cannot believe that my senses provide a consistent view of the external universe, then why even accept that the external universe exists at all other than in my imagination? (I know that our senses are fooled all the time with optical illusions and the like, but at least they are (seem to be) fooled in a consistent manner).

So a "fact" I would define (in a scientific sense) as an observation about the universe which is repeatable by anyone using the same instruments as the original observer.

andymackem wrote:God is deceiver? No, mankind is fallible. I didn't say God artificially aged the Earth, I said that our estimates of the Earth's age were consistently exaggerated due to manmade flaws in processes such as carbon dating. You can't seriously believe that science is flawless, can you? That would smack of funda-mental-ism! (sorry, cheap shot!)

Cheap shot taken. And fair enough Well, no, science isn't flawless but through a process of repeated checking, the flaws become smaller all the time. The point of any scientific research is that the data are there for anyone to check if they have the inclination. And all the data point to a universe far older than a few thousand years by about six orders of magnitude.

andymackem wrote:Consistency: but your "cursory examination" offers a discrepancy of up to the 3 billion years, or up to one quarter of the estimated history of the universe?

Well, that's down to me not being able to remember the consensus figure for the age of the universe, rather than a 3 billion year margin of error.

andymackem wrote: Or indeed the entire estimated span of recognisable life? If I'm not inclined to believe you in the first place I can happily beat you round the head on this one forever, frankly.

Well fair enough.

andymackem wrote:I do agree that if someone is more interested in their opinion than taking on board other ideas it can make for an impossible dialogue - I think we're demonstrating that fairly neatly ourselves! And I have almost as much fun winding up creationists with a similar set of arguments from the other side.

Winding me up eh? I'll get you...

andymackem wrote:@ Boudicca. You have the right to say their theories are rubbish. But if they total roughly half the population, and we are in a democracy, don't we have to accept a majority verdict (once we've removed the don't knows and don't cares)?.

Yeah but science isn't a democracy. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, sure, but they're not entitled to their own facts

andymackem wrote:The evidence for a transcendant god, if you choose to believe it, is also everywhere. I have friends who insist that God (the Christian one) has directly intervened in their lives and the lives of people around them. Personally I disagree with them, but they feel they have more direct, personal proof of their God than I can derive from any scientific treatise. And without having shared their experience, how can I be sure they are wrong?

You can't be sure but there is research being done at the moment that seems to indicate that religious-type experiences can be brought about by anomalies in the brain's temporal lobe; and even induced by magnetic stimulation of the brain. *shrug* But it's a controversial area for research, obviously.

andymackem wrote:Faith = always destructive. Listen to Bach. Think again. What I term "corporate religion" might be, but faith can inspire wonders as well as disasters. From the earliest ages of human history it has prompted the high watermarks of civilisations: think pyramids, Stonehenge, the great churches, temples, mosques, think the art of the Italian renaissance. To pick a few examples. And yes, on the debit side think Spanish inquisition, Crusades, beheaded hostages in Iraq and all the rest. It's a two-way street.

Agreed.

andymackem wrote:Dubya who?

I'm off to bed. Peace and love, all.

Nighty night. Or good morning again

CtrlAltDelete wrote:

markfiend wrote:[The creationists deny the very fact of evolutionary change that has been observed to happen over and over again.

Now, now MF. Take a deep breath. Deep in your heart you know they're right. Can you look at Bush and honestly tell me you believe in evolution?

But since Daddy Bush has bailed W out of every shitheap he's ever landed himself in, he's not been subject to selective pressures