by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends
Not emotionally equipped? There's no need to judge, NC, I am just trying to communicate with you (I understand you are too, but it's a poor attempt). We have been zooming past each other for months now and if we were able to come to an understanding I think everybody, including the audience, could learn a lot. Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW5sMgGo7dw
Instead of trying to assess and quantify my emotional stability you could try a different aproach.
-Sab
And pertaining to the original discussion...
PBS' "Nova scienceNow" program tonight is titled, "How Smart Can We Get?"
The program description reads:
"Whether it's possible for anyone to become a genius or if such smarts are purely a result of one's DNA. Also: a man who became an extraordinary musician following a head injury; a man who can match any past or future date to its day of the week. (Science & Technology, 57 minutes)"
" I am just trying to communicate with you"
sab, with the greatest respect, its like discussing particle physics with an 8 year old that refutes FACTS for their own ideas e.g. One day we may be able to stop entropy.... You are trying to discuss things you dont know Sab. This isnt the problem, nobody is born with this knowledge, but when we come to learn it we dont have the ego or ignorance to assume its all wrong and that we can hypothesise the reality without the facts or ANY scientific training. You are a nightmare to talk to. I help people learn evolution all the time, they ask for evidence, they ask how? Why? When? Where? All you do is say "no... I think..."
The conversations you are involved in are not up for debate, we have the answers! If there was new evidence then YES they would be up for debate, but you dont offer any, i dont think you even grasp the basics of evidence and the scientific method.
i mentioned neanderthals having a large brocas area, with no evidence,no idea what you are talking about, no training, no qualifications, you think its valid to suggest they had unique brains to everyone else and therefore the point I was making to you was wrong. You just chose the laziest and most ignorant route out of the evidence presented to you. You didnt ask how, why, when and where we knew this about neanderthals, if you did you would see why your reply was so ridiculous. You dont want answers. So why try to hold these conversations and debate an area you know nothing about? I would never start conversations about russian literature with my own little theories, thinking my ideas were as valid as literary experts. I know nothing about russian lit, i have attended no courses, read no textbooks... Therefore i dont assume to know anything about it. Likewise, how do you feel legitimate in your comments?
Your posts and threads are as dangerous and misleading as the ignorant comments found in cults and religions, such as the pope spouting that condoms caused increases in AIDS.
sab, i was 29 when i started my education into evolution. I have done evolutionary evidence lab work and research. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW THESE THINGS, GO DO A COURSE OR DEGREE. Prove them all wrong and become the most famous scientist in the world. In reality if you started a course, you would return with apologies.....
You currently dont understand evolution AT ALL
You currently appear to not have critical appraisal skills.... Or you are seeking bad 'science' on purpose
you currently dont understand what science is
you currently dont understand the scientific method
you currently display no knowledge of how to source good data and papers
you currently appear to have not read any evolutionary, biology, science textbooks
you currently believe that anecdotal evidence or personal belief is equivelant to RCT based evidence
you currently are painfully difficult to talk to about these issues due to all of the above....
Again, you are either a troll OR.... Just maybe, you are sincerely, deep down in you somewhere, keen to know modern scientific evidence so as to decipher the truths and lies of human knowledge.
Part of me thinks you believe this is about WINNING arguments, without realising you have already lost, you are fighting against facts. Looking for gaps is not a way of destroying science, that IS science.
I dont know your motives or desires. But I know that currently it is impossible to discuss these scientific issues with you because of the above list.
Why not sign yourself up for a course? Go order Campbell and Reece 'Biology' from Amazon and go through it in your own time. If you dont want to read such books or attend such courses then stop initiating debates on them, evolution is not window cleaning or knitting, it is a deeply scientific speciality requiring appreciation of cellular biochemistry, zoology, anthrapology, biology, probability, organic chemistry etc etc.
Evolution, biology etc is not easy to understand, yes Genesis 1:1 is, but easy to understand is not a measure for truth.
so if researching or entering training in these topics does not appeal to you, i can assume your motive is just to argue and wind people up. You may even leave feeling you have 'won' the conversation, like a child thinking they have won a debate on the wind by saying it didnt exist because it cant be seen.... Just because people dont reply to you, answer you or debate you, dont think you have won. I assure you, and I say this in the hope you listen and save embarassment, the things you are saying are of the utmost ignorance. Debating, replying to or discussing with such ignorance is a tiresome waste of time, especially if there is attitude and ego there too. Believing that an idea you come up with there and then in a forum on the internet is equivalent to the 250 years of reasearch and facts available to us is delusional.
Next time you get sick, think hard about how much you really trust/ doubt science.... The same equations and theories we use to date bones, items, rocks.. We use to work out how long a drug or treatment will last in your body (half lives). It doesnt have to be far out to kill people. The drugs we use are tested on evolutionary significant species, i.e animals that relate to our physiology. You would not believe the science that goes into drugs, with the greatest respect you would never even understand the processes or research being done. Go read up on monoclonal antibodies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibodies
This is one tiny, tiny, tiny branch in pharmacology and medicine, making use of our knowledge of biochemical reactions and chemistry, with underlying atomic knowledge of affinities and forces.
Im not trying to trump you or dilute your position with knowledge, but maybe it is an insight into the science behind what appears sometimes as very simple such as giving patients pills, or dating bones or evolution, or thermodynamics etc etc etc
Snare
pm me anytime if you decide you REALLY want to learn these topics, i am willing to help you find sources of data, research and info, good books and courses etc. i hope you one day ask.
Evolution is very complicated...I am slowly getting my head around it. It is NOT what I thought it was at all. But each book I read, and each time I discuss it I understand it a bit better.
Still, it only becomes more fascinating the more you study it. I got so excited over everything I learned, and I can't share it all here, but I find myself wanting to. I get excited about ideas.
I learned about analogous and homologous structures, and I love to just think about it for hours. That's how weird I am, but deeper understanding excites me.
Think about butterfly wings and eagle wings. These are analogous structures. They both have wings, they both fly, but they evolved those wings independently of each other responding to different pressures.
Finch wings and Eagle wings would be homologous---because they evolve from a common ancestor. If we go back far enough, they have a common ancestor with butterflies, but the adaptation does not come from that ancestor. Both butterflies and Eagles evolved wings after breaking away from that ancestor.
Just throwing that out there because I like to think about it, and maybe someone would like to know.
It is far more interesting than I expected it to be...I get excited everytime I learn something new too. And there is ALWAYS something new to learn about evolution because every scientific field contributes to it.
When something I have been puzzling about begins to makes sense...I feel excited all day. Who knew knowledge could bring so much joy. I certainly didn't.
sab, with the greatest respect, its like discussing particle physics with an 8 year old that refutes FACTS for their own ideas e.g. One day we may be able to stop entropy.... You are trying to discuss things you dont know Sab. This isnt the problem, nobody is born with this knowledge, but when we come to learn it we dont have the ego or ignorance to assume its all wrong and that we can hypothesise the reality without the facts or ANY scientific training. You are a nightmare to talk to. I help people learn evolution all the time, they ask for evidence, they ask how? Why? When? Where? All you do is say "no... I think..."
Snare, you have already concluded me to be a fool, you said so yourself. Instead of spending time guessing my intellectual age, maybe you could spend time backing up your facts with data and considering my ideas. I personally think it is YOU who can't get past your ego. If I am not backing my facts up, I am simply ignorant, you on the other hand are withholding information. You see yourself as a bringer of answers when I just don't see you as that. I see the internet as the bringer of answers and you as a bias biological robot full of knowledge with a connection to a spiritual realm. I'm sorry that my style seems to enrage you, but I assure you I am coachable, so long as the coach accepts the personality of the individual student.
The conversations you are involved in are not up for debate, we have the answers! If there was new evidence then YES they would be up for debate, but you dont offer any, i dont think you even grasp the basics of evidence and the scientific method.
Everything is up for debate, even fundamentals like the laws of thermodymanics. No, they are not WRONG, but they may be incomplete which may give us the wrong idea about them such as their permanence. I have faith that there are sciences out there in dire need of discovery. Whole fields of study need to open up so that we can have that vantage point that actually makes sense. As of now Science is just not trustworthy enough to give faith in. I will not simply bow to it as I only bow to one and that is the King of Kings, who made Science possible. My suspicion is that you are so ingrained in a secular mindset that you refuse to accept me as who I truly am. If I am how I am, I must be a fool. You seem to be a man of "conclusions" which means you are blind to what reality actually is. It's a tricky kind of blindfold that provides the wearer an illusion of a particular reality, but it's as stale as the dead fibers that make up the linen that shields your eyes from the truth.
i mentioned neanderthals having a large brocas area, with no evidence,no idea what you are talking about, no training, no qualifications, you think its valid to suggest they had unique brains to everyone else and therefore the point I was making to you was wrong. You just chose the laziest and most ignorant route out of the evidence presented to you. You didnt ask how, why, when and where we knew this about neanderthals, if you did you would see why your reply was so ridiculous. You dont want answers. So why try to hold these conversations and debate an area you know nothing about? I would never start conversations about russian literature with my own little theories, thinking my ideas were as valid as literary experts. I know nothing about russian lit, i have attended no courses, read no textbooks... Therefore i dont assume to know anything about it. Likewise, how do you feel legitimate in your comments?
A fair point. However, I take an approach that differs from most. I have always looked at teachers as equals, not superiors. You previously asked me how my teachers growing up dealt with me. They all became my good friends. I was never a kid, really, my dad and the Watchtower never let me. I would listen to lectures, but I would never do homework and it would often incense the teachers because they believed the busywork was required. Often I would find myself in a battle of wits with the teachers because they secretly wanted to fail me in their class. Since I knew I was not going to need high school transcrpits for anything (end of the world you know) I treated high school like a game. It was more of a challenge to aim for a D and NOT fail than to do the busywork and get the A. The trick was that you have to get one hundred percents on all tests and finals and if you do next to nothing else you can usually get at least a D. There was a common theme of the teacher having disgust for my lack of work ethic and then utter amazement that I would get A pluses on most tests and ace any final that was given. Learning is EASY, it doesn't take repetition it just takes a certain process that is tailored for an individual. It also takes motivation and drive which are mysterious personal forces. Just give me the curriculum and lectures on it and I will be fine. Instead of doing homework I would just read encycopdias about subjects that interested me rather than what was being taught. Or read science fiction books. That's why I love Wikipedia so much, it's like your own personal top level educational tutor. You can go in and out of many subjects and not have to delve too deep. You can learn at your own pace without a teacher breathing down your neck, it's nice.
Anyway, why do I feel my comments are legitmate? Because. That's literally my answer, if you disagree then that's, like, your opinion, man. Show me where I am wrong rather than complain, or bow out, but have some respect, man.
Your posts and threads are as dangerous and misleading as the ignorant comments found in cults and religions, such as the pope spouting that condoms caused increases in AIDS.
Now those are some interesting adjectives, do I get to call Cofty's rule on this one? The thing about mind control is it has to match up with the BITE Model. I really don't know whether to be offended or flattered by this statement. Do I sound convincing, but really am not? I don't claim any kind of authority, I am merely an internet hothead, who should listen to me? If they don't fact check me, that's on them. Where does the personal responsibility lie? The Watchtower has little old laddies who say they desperately miss you for their indoctrination seminars. Armageddon's a comin' and they are concerned for your safety for Christ's sake! Those people got the BITE model down to a tee, I just don't see the comparison, sorry. This feels like a meager attempt on your part to put me in my place.
sab, i was 29 when i started my education into evolution. I have done evolutionary evidence lab work and research. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW THESE THINGS, GO DO A COURSE OR DEGREE. Prove them all wrong and become the most famous scientist in the world. In reality if you started a course, you would return with apologies.....
Ah, the investment pitch, I knew it was coming. Make sure to drive the point home and don't forget to ASK FOR THE MONEY!
Again, you are either a troll OR.... Just maybe, you are sincerely, deep down in you somewhere, keen to know modern scientific evidence so as to decipher the truths and lies of human knowledge.
As an educated man, you know what a false dichotomy is right? See, just because you make a mistake doesn't mean I have to deem you unfit for debate, something to think about.
Part of me thinks you believe this is about WINNING arguments, without realising you have already lost, you are fighting against facts. Looking for gaps is not a way of destroying science, that IS science.
The way it works is that I don't set out to be right OR wrong even though the people I discuss with seem to set out for a conclusion. When you really think about it there is no reason to ever think that any discussion can ever end with anything conclusive. What we will always end up with is an array of theories that serve as empirically useful to our environment. I would argue that it is actually YOU who is using a right/wrong, black/white stance more so than I. You are saying that we should rightly chain ourselves to what are is considered established fact. That we somehow have a responsibility to invest in our own education of those facts or else we don't have a rite of passage to discuss and create theory. I strongly disagree, at least about official education, I think a farmboy in a third world country could teach you something you never knew. If you only humbled yourself you would learn.
I dont know your motives or desires. But I know that currently it is impossible to discuss these scientific issues with you because of the above list.
Why do you need to know my motives and desires? To establish a comfort zone? Why would you create such restrictions? We should keep the path to truth as smooth as possible. Like I said there is a lot of creative thinking required in order to reconstruct the Neanderthal social lifestyles. What if a creative thinker wants to work with just a certain collection of data? It seems that you just have a certain criteria for research that you don't see being met by someone who presents their case strongly. It seems like an overreaction to me.
Why not sign yourself up for a course? Go order Campbell and Reece 'Biology' from Amazon and go through it in your own time. If you dont want to read such books or attend such courses then stop initiating debates on them, evolution is not window cleaning or knitting, it is a deeply scientific speciality requiring appreciation of cellular biochemistry, zoology, anthrapology, biology, probability, organic chemistry etc etc.
There's the sales pitch again. Why don't you personally put together an online curriculum and give it out for FREE? Now that's an idea, you could put all your secret tricks in it.
Evolution, biology etc is not easy to understand, yes Genesis 1:1 is, but easy to understand is not a measure for truth.
Genesis 1:1 is not easy to understand, in fact I would say that is the number one most misunderstood verse in the whole Bible.
so if researching or entering training in these topics does not appeal to you, i can assume your motive is just to argue and wind people up. You may even leave feeling you have 'won' the conversation, like a child thinking they have won a debate on the wind by saying it didnt exist because it cant be seen.... Just because people dont reply to you, answer you or debate you, dont think you have won. I assure you, and I say this in the hope you listen and save embarassment, the things you are saying are of the utmost ignorance. Debating, replying to or discussing with such ignorance is a tiresome waste of time, especially if there is attitude and ego there too. Believing that an idea you come up with there and then in a forum on the internet is equivalent to the 250 years of reasearch and facts available to us is delusional.
As a Christian I am very child-like which can often be misinterpreted by curmudgeon types as foolery. Really what I am seeing here is a compliment because children often bring a fresh perspective that old timers simply will not see. I notice this even with my 2 year old as he is experiencing life from a vastly different temporal vantage point than I. When speaking with him he sometimes will correct me and I will have to think about it because on the surface it appears he is making a mistake when he's actually just coming at an angle that I now take for granted that he has a fresh perspective on.
Next time you get sick, think hard about how much you really trust/ doubt science
I like the question that Michael Moore asked Oprah, "Why do people have to make money off others getting sick?" I don't doubt science, I doubt our financial system. I have a lot of trust in the scientific method when it's being weilded by people who can handle that kind of power. Who has shown that they can so far?
Im not trying to trump you or dilute your position with knowledge, but maybe it is an insight into the science behind what appears sometimes as very simple such as giving patients pills, or dating bones or evolution, or thermodynamics etc etc etc
I get where you are coming from, Snare, I really do, and I thank you for taking the time to give your perspective. I hope that I have communicated some new information to you as there seems to be profound disconnect.
-Sab
You just chose the laziest and most ignorant route out of the evidence presented to you.
I really dont think im clever Sab, none of this is my knowledge, my findings, i am repeating other peoples that i have tested out...
thanks for the reply, all the best with your future.
