Isnt building a replica of Noahs ark kind of like me building a replica of the Death Star? Cause you can call it a replica all you want, but since neither of them ever actually existed...
maximumtool
JoinedPosts by maximumtool
-
8
Replica of Noah's Ark built....
by Metamorphosis inhttp://www.pbase.com/paulthedane/noahs_ark.
somebody build a replica of the ark...thought it was interesting sorta.... morph.
-
-
-
-
-
maximumtool
This video is 98% propoganda. Technology and the choices exercised by consumers, as in us, are what has repeatedly killed the electric car.
When the know how to create a battery that will drive anything but an underpowered tin can doesnt exist, you have can only give people the option of driving underpowered tin cans. This is what happened from 1996 to 2003 with GM, and 1997 to 1999 with Honda, 1997 to 2002 with Toyota, and 1998 to 2002 with Ford. All of these products failed because the cars would never become profitable, and people in these time periods chose to buy every flavor of truck and SUV imaginable. When the United States has 5% of the worlds population and uses almost one third of the oil, that is where the problem comes in. We as consumers chose the direction, and businesses simply gave us what we wanted, myself included.
Consumers in a capatalistic economy always choose the markets and the products follow, unless there is a significant technology barrier in which case the products follow after that barrier is overcome. People have wanted an electric car for decades, the technology simply has not existed to give people that product in a safe, practical, realistic and truly usable form.
You dont think that the coal industry would love to have us all driving electric cars? There is more coal in the US then anywhere else in the world. Do you think that the coal industry would just sit back and let the oil industry crap on them? The auto industry, both domestic and foreign, has been trying unsuccessfully to roll out electric cars for decades. It is the technology hurdles that have prevented a truly useful product from being delivered, and we chose instead to buy huge gas guzzling beasts as opposed to being inconvenienced. We gave the oil companys every card in the deck so that they would be able to profit so enormously.
There is now a company called A123 that is creating a battery that will finally drive and power a normal functional car that performs normally and has a range that accomodates most peoples daily commutes. This company has an exclusive deal with GM and will actually lead to a real and truly viable electic car. The development of this new battery technology began years before the recent oil price explosion and is the result of the true interest in an electric car that has been around for decades. This battery will finally give people the option of buying a realistic electric car that you can actually drive. Thus, there is a good chance that people will buy it.
There is nothing the oil industry will be able to do to stop it.
-
64
My wife is gonna look at apostate info
by 10p ini never thought we'd be here.
after a long discussion last night, my wife now wants to know the 'other side of the story'.
what made me leave.
-
-
maximumtool
First off, I am thrilled for you! I dont know...why do I think it is appropriate to say "congratulations!"???
You mentioned that she is reading COC? I know that after slowly acknowledging a lifetime of doubts I finally read that book. That was what sealed the deal for me...
Its kind of ironic, cause I dont have the usual JW concerns issues. While I understand what others are saying by being concerned regarding the hypocrisy and double standards of the WTBS, my doubts always laid in not believing in the flood of Noahs day, or the creation story in the bible...
But this isnt a forum about me! But I guess it is possible that she may have been not consciously acknowledging doubts for years that you have no idea what they are (sorry, I didnt read the entire thread and so you may have disclosed them half way through or something). But I saw that she is reading COC, and if she is anything like me, or alot of us, that will pretty much seal the deal...
-
53
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy in1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.
-
-
maximumtool
YKnot:
First things first, please dont be offended, that is the last thing that I would want. And I absolutely was not saying you are lacking in capability or capacity.
Regardless if your statements were made regarding how evolution is perceived in the state of Texas, they still reveal that you do not know the basics of what is considered science. This does not mean that you are stupid or incapable, I am sure you are not either of those things, it just means that you do not know. Thats all. No reason to be offended.
You said: "So if you can't respect my views this means you assume yours are the only respectable/acceptable explanation? That is not very scientific. It is just plain onesided, closed minded and argumentative."
Not all opinions are equal, and therefore not all opinions should be respected equally. To state an extreme case for the sake of being clear, I am sure that Charles Manson has a ton of views and opinions that you choose to not respect. Are your views the only alternative to his? Obviously not. And again, you show your misunderstanding of what is scientific and what is not. The only respectable/acceptable explanations for anything are the ones that are in line with what the facts suggest. Straying from facts doesnt make someone "open minded", it makes them foolish and delusional.
"Your whole post seems to be aimed at questioning (undermining) my education because I don't believe as you."
My post was aimed at questioning your education because you came on this thread, made a statement implying that you were an authority on this subject, and then attempted to educate others on this site. My statements have nothing to do with you not believing as I do. You have a right to whatever you want to believe in. But to come on a discussion board that is going to be read by others, claim a level of expertise on a subject and make sweeping statements that are not even remotely close to accurate (based on the facts, not my opinion) is what I take issue with.
"You equate science with evolution as an absolute and it colors all of your responses. Evolution is not an absolute."
I do not equate evolution with science. Evolution is a theory that could become invalidated tomorrow if a test came along that gave results outside of what Evolutionary Theory has predicted. In other words, the process of conducting science could be the undoing of evolution in an instant, and scientists would welcome that. You are right, Evolution is not an absolute, not at all. Evolution is a theory used to explain what the facts tell us about life on this planet and biodiversity.
"You perceive one theory as fact and the other as myth when both sides have equal ammunition to fuel this argument until the sun burns out."
This simply could not be more incorrect. And this is coming from someone who used to be the most hardcore creationist you could ever imagine.
"Can you prove that there is no God, who acted as a Creator"
Evolution is not an atheistic theory. It is an attempt to explain the facts that we know, and has nothing to do with God.
"Yet Evolutionist insist on being absolutely right and having the 'troof'"
This is not at all correct. Anyone who properly understands evolutionary theory realize that a single test can come along and suddenly disprove the entire theory. Anyone with a proper view of science would embrace this. No one who wants to adhere to the appropriately rigirous standards of science would want to cling to evolutionary theory if it suddenly was not supported by fact.
"Yet just like the Witnesses your perception is the only persception acceptable."
If you knew me at all, you would know that this is not the case. My view is, and always will be for the rest of my life, the one that is supported by the evidence. For now, evolutionary theory is the best explanation with regards to the biodiversity we see on this planet.
"Breathe..... your way is not the only way and neither is mine."
I cant steer reality based on my preference. Things are what they are. We have our facts, then we determine a way to explain them. It is what it is. There is no "way" to it...
-
53
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy in1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.
-
-
maximumtool
Loosie:
When a scientific concept is classified as a "theory", "theory" is not meant as the same thing as when you and I use it on a daily basis in typical conversation, like when you are talking about something like a hunch.
When a scientist proposes a scientific theory, what they are attempting to do is explain a set of facts that have already been determined. Then that theory is tested and is either (1) rejected - because it failed all of the tests, or (2) modified - because it passed some of the tests but not all of them, or (3) accepted - as in it passes all reasonable and applicable tests.
This should tell something about theories. For one thing, a theory is only as concrete as the results of the current round of testing. In other words, an "accepted" theory can quickly become fully or partially invalid if a new test comes around and the results of the test, which are the facts mentioned above, conflict with what the theory would tell you to expect from the test. This will result in either the theory being "modified", or in some cases being flat out "rejected".
The order of events is: first, you determine the facts, and only after that do you determine the theory. After you have developed your initial theory, most likely new facts will continue to present themselves, usually through additional testing. These new and additional facts will guide the continued acceptance, modification, or flat out rejection of the theory. You do not develop a theory and then hang onto it in spite of the facts, or reject the facts because you dont like them.
Theories that are widely held do get flat out rejected from time to time, and that is the beauty of science. One widely known example of this is the idea of a flat Earth. The Theory of a Flat Earth was put forth to attempt to explain facts, and the theory met the "tests" for some time. Then more appropriate testing began and the theory was appropriately rejected, though not without attempts at modification of the theory (which unbelievably continue to this day.)
Another not as well known example is with regards to "ether", which was a widely accepted theory until about 120 years ago. Too much info to write here, but if you are interested in learning you can look up the Mickelson and Morley experiments of the 19th century. Truly brilliant guys...
Evolution as a theory has pretty much stayed in the "accepted" category since it was proposed. But, just like any other theory in science, it could find itself in position to need thorough modification, or flat out rejection, if a valid and appropriate test came along that showed that the theory was not the best explanation for life and the bioversity on this planet.
In a way, this is what has happened with Creationism, particulary Young Earth Creationism. As a theory it is very old, several thousand years, and was offered up to explain the existance of life and the biodiversity on this planet. What has happened is that virtually every established fact, which exist regardless of whatever theories we as humans come up with, lies in direct contradiction with what the theory of Creationism and Young Earth Creationism tells us to expect.
Creation theory should not be taught as an appropriate alternative to Evolution theory anymore then "Theistic Energy Propogation Theory" (yes, I made that up) should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Special and General Relativity.
Do you see what I mean?
-
53
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy in1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.
-
-
maximumtool
YKnot:
No offense intended, but I have no idea how you have any certification in any area of biology, or science for that matter. Your very post reveals that you know very little about even the basics of what is considered science, or what is part of the process of conducting anything related to science...
If I am reading your last post correctly, I feel very sorry for the students in Texas. And I feel very sorry for the faculty, who many were no doubt at one point also students, in Texas. If what you are saying is remotely close to accurate, they are clearly victims of a flawed education system.
To quote you, and then reply:
"I can respect your views and politely disagree. Can you with mine?"
I can politely disagree with you, but I can not respect your views anymore then if you came on here and said that "Satan is really the reason people get cancer, and biologists should abandon their efforts to find cures because they are powerless to fight Satan." Your statements in this thread are in the same league...
"And again if we are slotted to evolve and cease to exist as homo sapiens why does it matter anyways?"
Statements like these make me question if you have any true accredited credentials. Homo Sapiens, or any species for that matter, are not slotted to evolve or cease to exist. We will exist in our environment, and as a population adapt to its changes, as long as circumstance permits. If circumstances lead to changes in our environment that we can not adapt to as a population, then as a population we will cease to exist. Its very, very basic.
"What is the purpose? Do you evolutionist hope to find some scientific grounds to delay or prevent what yall feel is inevitable?"
This shows another misunderstanding of the very basics of what science is all about. Science is a search for explanations. It is not a search for the specific answers that we as individuals want to questions that we have. If some inevitable catastrophe was looming, coming up with a theory for us that we all would like to believe in would do nothing to change the event. A proper and valid theory however can lead to the creation of tools that we can use to help ourselves out on an individual and population level. And evolution, as a theory, has done that many times, particularly in the realm of biology.
"How does believing and teaching evolution make any difference in society?"
It makes sense in the sense that it is, to date, the best explanation for the facts laid before us regarding life on this planet, and the biodeversity we see around us. For many people, their lives are completely unaffected by whethey they personally believe in evolution or creation. However, their lives are affected when they get sick. When that happens, they are very fortunate that the vast majority of individuals directly and indirectly influencing their recovery are evolutionists.
"What is the big deal, you don't believe us and we don't fully believe you.......but technically each can be argued as erroneous."
The big deal is that one is an explanation of determined facts (evolution) and another is a myth that exists in contradiction to determined facts (creation). I, for one, prefer the first in all aspects of my life. I have no time for anymore garbage. It is why I left the witnesses!
"I ask not as an antagonist but from lack of understanding the zeal of evolutionist."
The zeal comes from finally at least having some grasp on truth, as in real truth.
"It truly baffles those of us raised with creationism."
Not all of us. I was a hard core creationist. BIG TIME. You would probably love some of the papers I used to write and what I used to do in college and high school classrooms. Arguing with the teacher, calling them idiots, fighting with them when I had literally no idea what the hell I was talking about. It was all straight out of the WTower, the Creation book, creationist propoganda...basically, anything I could find. I literally could not have been more wrong. I was just as zealous as I am today, it is just now I understand the real importance of truth, and that there is real true joy in the learning experience and educating myself, and not just living on whatever dogcrap is forcefed down my throat...
-
16
If you were the deity, would you demand to be showered with gutted animals?
by easyreader1970 ini have always been a bit confused by this.
i can understand why a deity would want and demand respect.
i can similarly understand why a deity would want and demand loyalty.
-
-
maximumtool
You really hit the nail on the head there...
For me it was always a real "stumbling block" whenever I took a good, honest and candid look at our supposed "God of love".
I too was always personally bothered by the notion of animal sacrifices in particular. What possible sense of balanced justice would demand that one of God's creations, humans, slaughter another completely innocent creation, the animals, to pay for the humans sins and mistakes?
It absolutely defies reason.
-
10
God --- Artist or Engineer?
by hamilcarr ini've been wondering whether god should be seen as an artist or an engineer.
the hebrew verb commonly translated as 'created' in genesis 1:1 bears the meaning of 'to cut out', hinting at god being a sculptor.
in its endeavour to imitate scientific language, the intelligent design movement, on the other hand, wants us to believe that god is an engineer who consciously designed the entire universe.
-
-
maximumtool
I dont know...
Would any truly passionate engineer or artist just sit back and watch their creation destroy itself and live in comparative misery just because it didnt show the proper respect to him from practically the very beginning?
One would think that if this respect and reverence were actual constraints that this artist/engineer had placed upon what he considered to be a successful design, then he should be punishing himself for failing and not just watching his project suffer because of his ego...
-
32
Adam and Eve were NEVER perfect.
by gaiagirl injw's frequently say that the first human couple were "perfect" and would have lived forever until they gave up perfection by their disobedience.. however, closer reading of the genesis account shows that they were never perfect, instead, they were designed to grow old and die, just like the rest of the animals.
jehovah has adam name all the animals, but finds that none of the animals is suitable as a companion (wonder how this was determined)?.
jehovah clones a companion for adam, and tells them to not eat the fruit of a certain tree, or they will die "in that very day".
-
-
maximumtool
Adam and Eve were meant to live just as long as any other mythical individuals whose existance is exclusively in literature and that literature is a rip-off of similar stories in older books...
-
5
Objections To Evolution
by hamilcarr injust curious: are there any objections to evolutionary biology beside these refuted on wikipedia:.
.
3objections to evolution's scientific acceptance3.1evolution is just a theory, not a fact3.2evolution is controversial or contested4objections to evolution's scientific status4.1evolution is a religion4.2evolution is unfalsifiable5objections to evolution's evidence5.1evolution has never been observed5.2past evidence for evolution has been overturned5.3evolution's evidence is unreliable or inconsistent6objections to evolution's plausibility6.1life is too unlikely to arise by chance6.2evolution does not explain certain human behaviors7objections to evolution's possibility7.1evolution cannot create complex structures7.2evolution cannot create information7.3evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics8objections to evolution's morality8.1evolution says that humans are animals8.2evolution leads to immorality and social ills8.3evolution leads to atheism .
-
-
maximumtool
Hamilcarr,
The process of the scientific method always leaves the door open for concrete objection to evolution, or any other scientific theory for that matter.
In order to have a legitimate objection to evolution, in this case I assume you mean biological evolution, someone would have to take a look at currently established factual data and establish a hypothesis regarding either its origin or nature that would be partially or entirely contrary to the explanations offered by the theory of evolution.
The hypothesis would then have to be tested and if the new hypothesis were validated by the successful completion of appropriate tests then the theory of evolution would either be modified, as has happened repeatedly, or would be discarded which at this point would be highly unlikely. And obviously, as the theory of evolution continually becomes more refined and more firmly established more thorough and detailed testing would be required of any hypothesis that would be considered as a legitimate alternate explanation for an established set of facts.
If your question could better be summed up by asking, "are there any more thoughtless and utterly ignorant unresearched and non-fact-based complaints against the theory of evolution then what is contained in this comparatively short list", the answer to that is "yes".